The Delusionary Thinking of Both Matt Flannagan and Paul Copan
[Written by John W. Loftus] According to Thom Stark, both Matt Flannagan and Paul Copan have backed themselves into a corner in order to defend their faith. "According to the Bible, Yahweh killed children, and ordered others to kill children. There's no way to get around that fact," but watch them try. As I have said before, defending the Christian faith makes smart people look stupid. Check it out.
129 comments:
I can't believe the crowd that is always forcing the "literal truth of the bible" down our throats would have the gall to claim that the child murdering is an exaggeration . . . but that whole Noah thing, that really happened =)
~Rhaco
It was interesting to see hyperbole lumped in with outright lies by Stark, as if hyperbole wasn't a normal honest way of communication.
I thought Matt Flannigan made a compelling case that hyperbole was in use in scripture on some of these things. But I didn't think that his suggestion worked with all the examples. And no children at Sodom? That does seem a bit of a stretch.
It's quite false that they had no concept of the innocence of children though. Deuteronomy 1:39 explicitly speaks of "little ones and children" having "no knowledge of good and evil".
For me, the issue lies in questioning our western individualism and noting that scripture involves a more complex picture that recognizes both an individualistic aspect of responsibility and a corporate group responsibility. It is a picture where emphasis shifts a bit towards the more individualistic end as scripture progresses, but the corporate end never leaves. And that's the way it should be. We are not just individuals. We are social and our being is very much wrapped up in others. So why shouldn't our responsibility reflect this complexity?
And there was indeed awareness of the complexity very early on. After all, Moses at one point in his intercession for Israel asks God to forgive them. And then at another point, he involves his innocent self in there repentance asking God to "forgive us".
and corporate responsibility remains with us, or perhaps we'd be better off if we emphasized it more. If the environmentalist are right (and I suspect that they may indeed be right) our children will be punished for our carbon emmissions. Perhaps they will be punished for our nuclear stockpiles. They are apart of us, we cannot seperate our sins from them. Well, we can to an extent, but not completely. In individualism, there is no better illustration of how we will die, because each man reasons that my small part is nothing. Only in identifying with the group by our actions can we fully own responsibility for environmental havoc.
In the new testament, redemption is interestingly made in terms of adopting new roots, new ancestors. Those who were against Jesus had the persecutors for their ancestors. But those who have faith in Jesus are grafted in to the family of Abraham and are his spiritual heirs.
Rob,
To say that little children have no knowledge of good and evil does not mean they can't have imputed guilt from their parents and tribe.
at rob. what exactly so complex about admiting that if the bible, which christians everywhere swear up and down is absolute fact from end to end, that god indeed did order and participate in the murder of children? and what does "corporate group responsibility" have to do with the question at hand? is the bible telling the truth about god, or is it a work of fiction? nice attempt at dodging the issue, but face it: if the bible is true, then god murdered children. what a great and loving god he must be.
Not to mention the fact that He chooses to condemn those who fail to love him or love him insufficiently to ETERNAL torture and suffering based on a few measly decades. So petty and trifling. Talk about the punishment not fitting the crime.
I notice that christians are not flocking to this post as they have to your other posts of late, john. could it be they do not have the same "faith" in the biblical stories of murderous, child slaughtering god as they do in the stories of loving, universe creating god? same bible, right? just checkin'.
Hi Matt -- you wrote, "I notice that christians are not flocking to this post as they have to your other posts of late, john"
No pressure to respond, but just wondering, are you a former Christian ? If so, exactly what was the good news of God supposed to be? Was it God telling mankind, "Behave yourselves and appease my offenses or you're condemned" or was it, "I see you suffering from condemnation and desire to rescue you from being a victim or a victimizer"?
As a former believer what were you told about the purpose of salvation? Why were the OT folks chosen to prepare for the Messiah? What changed between the New and Old Testaments - was it God's personality or man's enlightenment and ability to perceive God's personality through Messiah??
Jesus was condemned as blasphemous because His expression of God offended religious, dogmatic egos.
At any rate, take care.
I haven't studied this issue in depth but I don't think God murders anyone. I think there are places where God allows the killing of people and animals but this isn't the same as murder. Moreover, I'm not sure how I would interpret such texts in the Bible. Clearly there is hyperbole and figure of speech. This is definitely something I will be studying more in the future.
well, beautiful feet, as fun as it would be diverting and changing the focus of this stream to "Matt's Experiences as a Christian", i don't see how it adds value to the discussion stream at hand.
because the point of John's post is this, as i see it: If stories in the bible about god murdering children are simply "exaggerated" (hyperbole) to emphasize moral lessons, then doesn't it stand to reason that other stories, such as jesus' resurection, for example, are also potentially simply "exaggerated" also? isn't the entire pillar of christianity, the bible, suspect due to this? as a christian, how do you know which stories are "hyperbole", and which are not? what is the basis for deciding? are all stories dealing with murder and extermination exaggerated, and all stories that support love and forgiveness and the christian belief system as it exists today told accurately?
in closing, i would ask: did or did not your god willfully murder or cause or direct children to be murdered? and doesn't it bother you if he did? and doesn't he break his own commandment to not murder? would it bother you if it happened today, and if so, wouldn't you be doubting god and risking eternal damnation if you didn't rejoice in the lord killing children if he decided it? so many facets of this issue to be discussed, and its all much more facinating than me, i promise. great post john.
@ cole i would direct you to exodus, chapter 11:4 Then Moses said, “Thus says the LORD: ‘About midnight I will go out into the midst of Egypt; 5 and all the firstborn in the land of Egypt shall die, from the firstborn of Pharaoh who sits on his throne, even to the firstborn of the female servant who is behind the handmill, and all the firstborn of the animals."
reads like murder to me
Matt,
God removing His hand of blessing and allowing someone or somthing to die isn't the same as murder. I don't think that allowing someone or something to die is always wrong in all circumstances.
God removing His hand of blessing and allowing someone or somthing to die isn't the same as murder. I don't think that allowing someone or something to die is always wrong in all circumstances.
How about Noah's flood? Assuming that you believe that story really happened, is that an example of God "removing his hand of blessing," or did God actively engage in some smiting? I know how it looks to me.
Walter,
It was an act of God removing His hand and allowing it to happen. The Bible often speaks this way. When God allowed Satan to destroy Job's family the Bible tells us that the Lord gave and the Lord takes away. When God does things like this what it means is that God permits these things to happen. He doesn't cause them directly. He allows them to happen for morally sufficient reasons. He's not the author of evil.
Cole,
God removing His hand of blessing and allowing someone or somthing to die isn't the same as murder.
So you wouldn't classify me as a murderer if I withheld food or medical care from my children and "let them die?"
Jim,
It depends on the context. Let me give you a Biblical example. God allowed evil men to murder His Son. But He had morally sufficent reasons for doing so. One of them being to save sinners. God's actions were justified in this context. Of course I don't think we should play God or be like Him in every way. He sees all of reality and knows whats best in each circumstance. We aren't like God in that He is infinite in wisdom and knowledge.
at cole exodus 12;12 ‘For I will pass through the land of Egypt on that night, and will strike all the firstborn in the land of Egypt, both man and beast; and against all the gods of Egypt I will execute judgment: I am the LORD.
strike. not "remove my hand of blessing".
exodus 12:And it came to pass at midnight that the LORD struck all the firstborn in the land of Egypt, from the firstborn of Pharaoh who sat on his throne to the firstborn of the captive who was in the dungeon, and all the firstborn of livestock. 30 So Pharaoh rose in the night, he, all his servants, and all the Egyptians; and there was a great cry in Egypt, for there was not a house where there was not one dead.
the LORD "struck". not "removed his hand of blessing"
Genesis 6:7 So the LORD said, “I will destroy man whom I have created from the face of the earth, both man and beast
"I will DESTROY", not...well, you know the rest. just 3 examples with very specific wording about gods intent and actions. acts of murder. there are also specific instances of god ordering israel to commit murder in his name. not unlike a mob boss sending out hitmen. the words in the bible don't leave much room for ambiguity in these passages.
Matt,
I see it as an act of God removing His hand and allowing it to happen. The Bible often speaks this way. When God allowed Satan to destroy Job's family the Bible tells us that the Lord gave and the Lord takes away. When God does things like this what it means is that God permits these things to happen. He doesn't cause them directly. He allows them to happen for morally sufficient reasons.
When God does things like this what it means is that God permits these things to happen. He doesn't cause them directly. He allows them to happen for morally sufficient reasons.
If God is sovereign, then there is no difference between God allowing evil and God directly causing evil. According to your worldview, God created Satan and gives him authority to act, thus God is ultimately responsible for all things that happen.
cole seriously? seriously? thats what your going with? because it doesnt say " When God does things like this what it means is that God permits these things to happen" anywhere in the bible that i can find.what it says in the bible is that god let satan kill jobs family. now agree with me that it SAYS IN THE BIBLE that god, himself, directly, killed the firstborn children of egypt. isn't that what it says? "the LORD struck all the firstborn in the land of Egypt" and "there was not a house where there was not one dead." active acts of aggression by god, not letting something happen.
"If God is sovereign, then there is no difference between God allowing evil and God directly causing evil. According to your worldview, God created Satan and gives him authority to act, thus God is ultimately responsible for all things that happen."
Walter,
There is a difference in God directly causing something and permitting it to happen for morally sufficient reasons. God created Satan as good but He then permitted Him to rebel for morally sufficient reasons. Satan was responsible for his rebellion. What Satan means for evil God means it for good.
Matt,
It tells us in Job that God allowed satan to destroy His family. But then Job tells us:
The Lord has given and the Lord has taken away.
That's my basis for saying that God permits these things. It often speaks this way in the Bible.
Another example is when the Bible says God hardened Pharoh's heart. God did this by removing His hand.
Elswhere the Bible says God is Holy. There is no darkness found in Him.
so, did god cause fire from heaven to come down and destroy 2 groups of 52 men in 2kings, or did elijah do that with his own power? was that god directly causing this, or god permitting it? i think you are clinging to some seriously thin distinctions when it comes to instances where it clearly states that god did these things directly and with intent,cole.
Matt,
I see it as God allowing it to happen because it says the same thing in Job.
The fire of God fell from heaven and burned up the sheep and the sevants consumed them.
Job 1:16
Matt, you said, "
because the point of John's post is this, as i see it: If stories in the bible about god murdering children are simply "exaggerated" (hyperbole) to emphasize moral lessons, "
Was the purpose of a savior to emphasize moral lessons or to emphasize mankind's need for salvation? The OT folks did not yet have Messiah so were not yet enlightened to the nature of God as expressed by Jesus. did they fully know the nature of God or were they projecting their own will upon God's nature? I think Jesus offended many of the religious of His day by suggesting so - by advising that they did not fully know God's nature until His coming.
There is a difference in God directly causing something and permitting it to happen for morally sufficient reasons. God created Satan as good but He then permitted Him to rebel for morally sufficient reasons. Satan was responsible for his rebellion. What Satan means for evil God means it for good.
No, Cole. If God is completely in control, then Satan's rebellion followed by man's rebellion was all part of the master plan. God is the author of everything that happens, good and bad. In essence, God would have made Satan to rebel. You are simply trying to hide behind a smokescreen of secondary causation because you cannot stomach that God directly created EVIL as part of the plan to bring himself glory.
Walter,
Evil (in and of itself) doesn't glorify God. God doesn't delight in evil for the sake of evil. What God delights in is the good He will bring out of evil. He works all things together for good for those that love Him.
God permits evil He doesn't directly cause it.
God permits evil He doesn't directly cause it.
A distinction without a difference.
Cole,
Sorry, bud--I think you're losing it . . . You've gone off the deep end here. Nobody can make any sense of what you're trying to claim.
God does X.
Cole: I really don't see it as God doing X.
God does Y.
Cole: I really don't see it as God doing Y.
Why even read the Bible? You're just going to make it say what you want it to say, anyway . . .
(Facepalm)
Jim,
God does it in the sense of permitting it. He doesn't directly cause it. Like I said above this is clear in the book of Job when God allows Satan to destroy Jobs family. Job states:
The Lord has given and the Lord has taken away.
why would christians flock to this? The original article was daft, and this post is even more daft, linking to it.
Morrison - "Since when have atheists had a problem with killing children?"
Exactly! We also eat babies.
Cole,
Isaiah 45:7
"I form the light, and create darkness: I make peace, and create evil: I the LORD do all these things" KJV
"I form the light and create darkness, I bring prosperity and create disaster; I, the LORD, do all these things." NIV
The bible god:
- "creates EVIL"
- "creates DISASTER"
How is that passive? How is this 'removing his hand of blessing'?
Your bible god actively initiates and participates in harming, destroying and murdering human beings. Why can't you see that?
@cole well then you have proved my point precicely. if clearcut wording needs to be interpreted and explained in the bible, then every word is suspect.
@ beautiful feet (cute name by the way) according to christianity, jesus is god, in human form. and in his own words, he was not here to change one word of the old laws, (do you still eat pork, or did god say its ok in the new testament somewhere?) and there is no evidence proving jesus was anything other than a rebellious individual, killed for his political views, if he existed at all.
and i would point out that after christianity began to acheive popularity, for over a thousand years wars were waged, knowledge was suppressed and people were persecuted and murdered, and all manner of barbarity and attrocities occured in jesus name (google the crusades, the dark ages, the inquisition, gallileo, abortion doctors murdered, just to point out a few). so apparently history teaches us that jesus came to bring war and murder in his name, old testament values, not "emphasize moral lessons or to emphasize mankind's need for salvation".
There has been more atrocity done historically by nonreligious men and systems of government than any in history, especially in modern times.
To state that religion or the Christian religion has been cause for world atrocities is a certain overstatement and the facts don't prove the arguments. This makes another assumption that atheism and non-religious worldviews will just make everyone sit on the beach without a care in the world...
What suckers to believe such garbage!
Look at the facts...IF the most religion nation in the world is America, what genocidal atrocities have been caused by it? Certainly it would be the most in history right? I mean if Christianity is responsible for all these bad things and belief in the bible is so bad for society, why isn't the US the "enforcer" in the word scene? Why wouldn't there be millions oppressed because of US aggression? in spite of what the Muslims think, the US should be dominating every opposing nations shouldn't we? We claim to be a Christian nation...certainly not an atheist one right???
Your argument is garbage!
According to Vox Day, 232 years 17 wars and numerous conflicts(pg.101)...This is hardly problematic for belief in the bible.
Now, you enter so called evidence of mass genocide by God upon nations historically...according to you Israel should be the most dominant force in history shouldn't they???...I mean ascriptions and archaeological finds of their dominance and tyranny by other nations should be abundant shouldn't it???
But what do you have??? SCRIPTURES...You have no archaeological or inscription evidence that Israel was tyrannical or destructive towards children and or women and nations in general. What you are doing is using the bible to prove certain aspects about God and religion...Don't that beat all?????
This is the very thing you tell us Christians not to do on this apostate site, but yet when all else fails and you have nothing to support your assertions, you take the bible out of context...WOW!!!
The atheists are arguing bible to prove the character of God and all of them blindly leap in the chasm to cut off their own head...
This is AMAZING!
Deal with the discernment of the character of God from scripture since that's ALL you have to support your argument, but if you do that you must do it right and apply the correct principles, not the conjecture and weak arguments that are being used in this comment section and on Starks commentary.
Learn first the egregious nature of sin. Second learn what part the people had in their own destruction including the destruction of their children...Since you want to use the bible mr atheist...use it right.
Cole said,
"...Elswhere the Bible says God is Holy. There is no darkness found in Him."
Definition of "Holy":
A theological adjective used to place questionable bullshit beyond questioning.
Isa. 45:7 has been determined to mean NOTHING close to what the critic (while using the bible) often asserts...there is NO evidence to support that God is either agressive or passive in tragedy among men and mankind. Most assertions I've seen around here are nothing more than ungodly and apostate interpretations...
Sorry if I sound upset...I am at people who get half a story and make a whole lie...
Then to assume that man without God is of such repute when they will perpetuate such despicable lies upon the scriptural texts of the bible, only proves why we need a savior.
Like I said...
Hi Matt - you wrote, "@ beautiful feet (cute name by the way) according to christianity, jesus is god, in human form. and in his own words, he was not here to change one word of the old laws, (do you still eat pork, or did god say its ok in the new testament somewhere?) and there is no evidence proving jesus was anything other than a rebellious individual, killed for his political views, if he existed at all. "
You're right--the laws did not change but our ability to be enlightened to the truth of God's nature was made clear by Jesus. Grace does not condemn but allows for progression and maturation. It would be cruel for God to command the OT folks to turn the other cheek without the promises of Jesus. someone had to do the hard work of shepherding in a place in the history of mankind for a spiritual savior to manifest.
At any rate, thx for the conversation, Matt --- take care! (and I'm glad you like the name!)
Also, one postscript to what I just wrote -- it is good to remember that the Messiah's purpose is for the salvation of mankind - that would include those in the OT who tried to destroy what they did not yet fully understand and was intended for their salvation as well as the Israelites.
ttyl!
"what its been determined to mean"."what it really means". "what its interpreted as". "the meaning behind".
I love all these terms. so, when people wrote these things, they didn't mean it as they wrote it, it was meant to be "deciphered" thousands of years later. when moses or elijah quoted god, it was meant to NOT mean how moses told it, but how cole and harvey and others would determine it means, much later in the future. I wonder what my post, right now, will be determined to "really" mean, if not what i wrote, far in the future?
amazing logic you people use. twist the bible to change what people wrote about events that your heros say happened, in order to make it look more acceptaBLE AND PLAUSABLE. and to accuse me of rendering lies by quoting words, written in black and white for the world to read in your very own "book of facts", the bible?
"there is NO evidence to support that God is either agressive or passive in tragedy among men and mankind" really? so, either moses was lying about what god said to him, or god lied about his intent to murder (active tense-strike) the firstborn children of egypt. or, the whole bible is a fiction written by scared men living in mud huts sacrificing goats to appease sky monsters. now THAT sounds likely.
oh, @ harvey. nice suit. fancy watch. leather bound embossed bible case. looks like the ministry has been good business. guess the whole "sell all your possessions and follow me" movement hasn't made it to peoria yet.
Matt,
Since John deletes my comments when they are too poignant and accurate as he would rather have you follow his delusions:
You like most critics, while using the bible to make your case against God, cut out the parts that destroy your case and give no time to figure out the "why" or what led to the acts and commands of god within scripture...You do the perfect hack job and don't discover any human culpability for anything and certainly don't discover any of the results of God's actions...
In Egypt, not only do you become historical minimalists when its convenient, but you also don't care about the slavery and bondage that Israel was under for 400 years. Yet you and critics of the sort say that God endorses slavery when he directly freed a nation of people from it as an example of what he feels about it...
You don't care that Israel's history records atrocities against them by the same nations that continued to sin and defile the land with their choice of sins and indiscretions.
Like I said before, if you're going to use the bible to attack the character of God within the bible at least use it right...study it, not just quote it, because obviously like John you can quote anything to make it what you wish...I could quote Dawkins all day to make him sound like a saint, and we all know there's nothing further from the truth than that.
District Harv, you have nerve to make a baseless accusation. I have never deleted any comment from you. There is a Spam filter here at Blogger that will sometimes catch a comment or two without my knowledge. That I have to release manually, which I just did.
Sheesh.
If you can jump to such quick and unjustified conclusions as this then I see no reason to think you have no reason to think the other conclusions you have reached about faith are on any better grounding. Rashly made. Faith based. No evidence is needed. Just a hunch.
Idiot.
My apologies to John, he DID NOT delete anything...blogger seems to have given me a glitch and the comment that showed deleted seemd like my first one since I could only view the second one.
My apologies!!!!
Apology accepted.
My turn.
I apologize too.
But I take very seriously such accusations.
Cheers Harv.
BTW Harv, you are one handsome dude!
No John, once again my APOLOGIES, most sincerely...The conclusions I jump to are warranted based on other commentary from you toward me, but nonetheless were without foundation regarding this...
So thanks and my frustration arises when you and others cut out the parts of the bible that you don't like or that doesn't fit your case, then demand that we accept what you erroneously quote as some sort of factual argument...that's not the case...If you want to argue the bible then give the counter argument from the bible the same credence instead of creating your own God and trying to ask Christians to defend him...That doesn't work and I've spotted out that that's what you and your cheerleaders do...
ok harvey. 1. there is ZERO(none zilch nada) evidence to support your claim that egypt enslaved israel. not one eqyptian relic, or carving supports it. no "bird fish crocodile guy-with-a-jackal-head bird" covered wall that mentions the jews or their story.
2. if the bible isn't written as fact, that makes it fiction. therefore, other than the morality it promotes, it is useless as a historical document or to provide any incite as to weather or not god truly exists. useless. so as far as gods existance or nature or actions, the bible proves nothing and we are back to square one. is god real or not? at least i can say i dont know, because the biggest supporting document is ancient and mostly fraudlent or exaggerated.
3. if the old testament is inaccurate, exaggerated and useless, even if jesus really was a god in human form, he told several lies basede on the old testament to mankind to prove he was indeed god. which means, at the very least, if he were a god, you should be asking what his motivation was to do so? perhaps, jesus was an evil god, who came here using old inacurate scripture to help stop man from finding the reaL GOD, WHO WE HAVE NOT DISCOVERED YET, IF HE EVEN EXISTS. (oops) there are a myriad of possibilities that can be explored, none any less valid than your suppositions about god and his nature. so who lied in the old testament? you never responded. was it moses, or god?
I have cheerleaders? Wooooo Hooooo!
Listen, if they are my cheerleaders than I am theirs. I cheer their tenacity with believers like you. I don't have that kind of patience.
John,
You've been fair to me I will admit but I'd like to see some balance especially if the text is all that the critic is using...What are the reason why god would command what he did? It seems your commentors think that is unimportant.
Handsome-HA-HA! You trying to get the good atheist of the year award from me??? My Denzel days are long over- good one!
@Dist. Supt. Harvey Burnett
What you are doing is using the bible to prove certain aspects about God and religion…This is the very thing you tell us Christians not to do[.]
Close, but not quite. We do not use the Bible to “prove” anything about the nature of God. The Bible is not proof of any god’s existence, much less its nature. Rather, we use the Bible to demonstrate that the various conceptions of both the Christian “God” and Christianity, as far as they are derived from and based on the Bible, are incoherent, inconsistent, contradictory. What we ask Christians to do is stop quoting the Bible as “proof” of anything beyond “this is what the Bible says.”
Matt,
I don't see how every word is suspect. I think we must interpret the Bible in light of the Bible. I think God is in control. He causes all things to work together for good for those that love Him. How could He do this if He's not in control? Granted The Bible sometimes speaks as though God directly causes evil and destruction but as we have seen in the case of Job this isn't the case. Moreover, the Bible says that Satan came to kill, steal, and destroy. God is the one who gives life. God permits him to do so but has morally sufficient reasons for doing so. What Satan means for evil God means for good. God is Holy not evil. Satan is the one who is evil.
clamat,
You said:"Close, but not quite. We do not use the Bible to “prove” anything about the nature of God."
That flies in the face of posting evidence. The whole post is contrived to call the nature of God into question based on the critics reinterpretation of the text using the text itself...
We were born at night, but not last night.
"This is what the LORD, the God of Israel, says: 'Strap on your swords! Go back and forth from one end of the camp to the other, killing even your brothers, friends, and neighbors.' The Levites did as Moses commanded, and that day about three thousand of the people died." Ex. 32:26-29
For since with this city, which is called by My name, I begin to inflict evil, how can you possibly be spared? You shall not be spared! I will call down the sword upon all who inhabit the earth, says the Lord of hosts. Jer. 25:29
That night the angel of the Lord went forth and struck down one hundred and eighty five thousand men in the Assyrian camp. Early the next morning, there they were, all the corpses of the dead." II Kings 19:35
"The men of Israel withdrew through the territory of the Benjaminites, putting to the sword the inhabitants of the city, the livestock, and all they chanced upon. Moreover they destroyed by fire all the cities they came upon. Judges 20:48
"Then the Lord rained upon Sodom and upon Gomorrah brimstone and fire from the Lord out of heaven; And he overthrew those cities, and all the plain, and all the inhabitants of the cities, and that which grew upon the ground." Gen. 19:24-25
There is no shortage of instances in the Bible where Yaweh either directly kills via supernatural means, heavenly fire, angels, plagues, or expressly commands the Israelites to commit genocide.
Face it, God is a war criminal. A terrorist.
God essentially nukes entire cities based on the alleged sins of a few, murders the firstborn children of an entire country based on the alleged sins of their parents, and has his army of invaders commit genocide against the original inhabitants of Palestine. These are not the actions of a benevolent entity, they are the actions of a psychopath, a thug, a demon, a monster.
This is YOUR book that says these things. Not mine.
And if any of you intend to get prissy about 'selective quotations' from the OT, it should be noted that all of the anti-homosexual furor that motivates so much of the mouth breathing Evangelical crowd is rooted in TWO selective quotations from the OT Lev. 18:22 and Lev. 20:13.
Selective quotation does not seem to bother Christians in the slightest when used to condemn those they dislike.
Don't blame me for what your book says. I'm certainly not the one claiming it represents absolute literal truth.
@Dist. Supt. Harvey Burnett
The whole post is contrived to call the nature of God into question based on the critics reinterpretation of the text using the text itself...
My point was that the Bible is not “proof,” i.e., evidence, that God exists, and therefore the Bible is not “proof” of the nature of a non-existent God. It’s an oft-made point, and one I admit I probably didn’t need to bring up again here.
I agree the thrust of the thread is that clearly the fictional character “God” described by the Bible is reprehensible.
Isaiah 45:7 - “I…create evil.” or “I…create disaster.” Other translations have it “I…create calamity.” No matter.
This short passage is plain, simple, concise, and unambiguous. “God” admits he visits evil/disaster/calamity on the world.
You claim (1) it “has been determined” that Isaiah 45:7 means “NOTHING close” to what it clearly states. Please provide the source(s) of your claim: How and by whom has it been determined that “I create evil” does not mean "anything close" to “I create evil”?
Matt wrote
because the point of John's post is this, as i see it: If stories in the bible about god murdering children are simply "exaggerated" (hyperbole) to emphasize moral lessons, then doesn't it stand to reason that other stories, such as jesus' resurection, for example, are also potentially simply "exaggerated" also? isn't the entire pillar of christianity, the bible, suspect due to this? as a christian, how do you know which stories are "hyperbole", and which are not? what is the basis for deciding? are all stories dealing with murder and extermination exaggerated, and all stories that support love and forgiveness and the christian belief system as it exists today told accurately?
So when latter you talk of people "twisting" the bible to say what they want, that justifies me discounting everything you have posted.
After all the word "twisting" is being used metaphorically, and if you accept a metaphor or hyperbole etc in one place it follows that everything you say could be metaphorical and so I cant be sure you literally said any of the above.
@ matt (flannagan) well matt, i will be happy to agree with your statement "After all the word "twisting" is being used metaphorically, and if you accept a metaphor or hyperbole etc in one place it follows that everything you say could be metaphorical and so I cant be sure you literally said any of the above." as long as you agree to apply the same fairness and logical thought toward the bible and admit that the entire book cannot be trusted for EXACTLY the same reason, and therefore offers ZERO confirmation of gods existence. that would be great to see that kind of honesty. bet you can't do it!!!
Matt wrote, "Selective quotation does not seem to bother Christians in the slightest when used to condemn those they dislike."
Matt, do you think someone who uses scripture to condemn others actually is a believer of Christ who said He did not come to condemn?
Christ doesn't condemn, so that leaves the condemners with a problem.....
at beautiful feet.... jeffrey said that.
Jeffrey,
What the books says is certainly what it says, but to leave out context is totally irresponsible and down right ignorant...
Look, a label on a household product says poisonous...Does this mean when you are cleaning with Pine Sol that you are cleaning with poison? The label says it doesn't it? But it's ignorance that takes what the l;label says out of context and creates his own idol to hate because of it...
That's YOU and every God hater that thinks this argument has fuel...You can quote all you want and offer no context to any of it, make unfounded and silly assertions and sound silly like all too many do when arguing the point...That's ignorance.
clamat,
We shouldn't have to argue all of Christianity to argue a post on a specific topic...holding out that Jesus exists which is a totally different argument in no way compromises the argument, only gives you another bad, refuted and irresponsible argument to be ashamed of...
So to argue the post go to minimal facts...assume that Jesus lived and the events recorded are true. Be honest with the argument it won't kill you. You can't make an argument against a shadow....but that's what atheism does eh?
So what do you want to criticize the literature itself, the events recorded within it, or the people who wrote it?
You're trying to argue at least three separate arguments and more as if they are one. They are not and each argument can be refuted as has been for hundreds if not thousands of years.
Jeffrey,
There are times when God would judge people in the Bible and would be directly invovled. But this isn't always the case. There are many places where He would allow the actions of evil men and Satan to destroy people and things (not always as an act of judgment)
The way I see it is God alone is perfect and He has the right to judge. I don't carry out God's wrath on anyone. The Bible has reserved a day for God's judgment for the future. He says "Vengeance is mine I will repay." I would also add that I think God does give the governing officials SOME of His authority to carry out SOME of His justice on the Hitlers of the world.
at harvey. thanks for making my point. "Look, a label on a household product says poisonous...Does this mean when you are cleaning with Pine Sol that you are cleaning with poison? The label says it doesn't it?" it means exactly that. you are cleaning with poison. nothing more, nothing less. no need to "intrepret" more from it. the writer didn't have hidden meaning when he wrote it.
"But it's ignorance that takes what the l;label says out of context". exactly my point!! when moses said in exodus "“Thus says the LORD: ‘About midnight I will go out into the midst of Egypt; 5 and all the firstborn in the land of Egypt shall die" " its what he meant god told him. god (supposedly)said to moses he was going to do this. kill children. personally. no hidden meaning, no need to take it out of context. its what the label says. glad to see we agree that in the bible it supports that god murdered children. thanks for your help. so again, is this right, did god murder children, or was moses lying?
I understand the context quite well.
And your God is acting quite in accordance with the attributes He ascribes to himself. Vain. Jealous. Angry. Wrathful.
The 3000 Hebrews the Levites killed were not because they were worshipping ANOTHER God, but because they were worshipping Yaweh in a way Yaweh found displeasing. Murdered because God is Vain, Jealous, Angry and Wrathful. So much for God being slow to anger.
The murder of the firstborn of Egypt was, in your story, retribution for Egypt's enslavement of the Hebrews, yet who 'removed his hand' and allowed the Hebrews to be enslaved? Was Egypt not simply acting according to God's will in enslaving the Hebrews? Clearly God has no quarrel with slavery per se as he ratifies its existence repeatedly throughout the text. It is fascinating that the Hebrews 'groan' in slavery for generations before God 'remembers' his covenant. Clearly God is also a forgetful God. More importantly, the murder of the firstborn arises BECAUSE God CHOOSES to hardern Pharoah's heart rather than listen to Moses and Aaron. God himself precipitated the crisis. And resolves it by murdering the innocent.
God is then presented with a large group of angry itinerant people. God's solution, invade your neighbors, burn their cities, kill their populations and take their land. Presumably, God being the Omni-Being that he is could have simply raised a new landform or transported the Hebrews to a place where they could establish a peaceful society under his love. Instead, he and the Hebrews do far more than covet their neighbor's wife, they covet their neighbor's land and murder and pillage in order to steal it. Thereby violating three of the commandments simultaneously. Presumably this is acceptable because God is allowed to order the violation of His Commandments.
After coveting and stealing their neighbor's land and creating huge numbers of refugees who are forced to flee into OTHER lands, those other lands get somewhat concerned that the Hebrews are destabilizing the entire region so they, rather logically, declare war on the Hebrews. Much as we and the rest of the world declared war on Iraq when they invaded Kuwait. Obviously, God could have appeared to the Amalekites and forestalled their invasion, but instead He issues an almost Bushian 'Bring em' On' warcry and then slaughters them himself. Again, based on a problem HE created.
And there really isn't even any point in discussing the other cities directly destroyed by God's wrath, Sodom, Gomorrah. They are just more instances of God acting out his self-professed character.
If you somehow believe that God was justified in this, just ask yourself how you would feel if a large group of itinerant fanatics who believed they were the servants of a divine being made war on their neighbors, murdered their citizens, and set fire to their cities.
We have a large group of dirty itinerant fanatics who exist right now who truly believe they are doing God's work. They declared war on us. Invaded our country. Murdered our citizens. Set our buildings aflame. They call themselves al'Qaeda.
@Dist. Supt. Harvey Burnett
clamat,
We shouldn't have to argue all of Christianity to argue a post on a specific topic...holding out that Jesus exists...
Is your comment intended to be addressed to me? I didn't say anything about the historicity of Jesus.
The rest of your post doesn't appear to address anything I've said.
And yes, of course PineSol is poison. It is exactly what the label says it is. That is why we have the Mr. Yuck sticker, because nearly all cleaning products are. That is why they work. Most of them will make you violently ill if ingested - a few will kill you.
I sincerly hope you don't allow your children free access to PineSol and Drano because of your liberal interpretation of 'poison.' Yeesh.
Also @ Cole,
God's vengence is not always carried out on 'the Hitlers' of the World. The men who he had killed at Mt. Sinai simply woshipped Him in a way he deemed improper. The children he murdered in Egypt were certainly not Hitlers. Nor was the entire Amalekite army. Nor was the entire population of Sodom or Gomorroah. God didn't even give them the same chance he gave those bastards at Nineveh, he just nuked them with his divine radiation.
Finally, it is worth noting that when it came time for the REAL Hitler, God sat idly by and allowed... HITLER HIMSELF to murder six million of his CHOSEN people. Crazy, I know.
Jeffrey,
You raise some good points here and as I said in my first post I need to study this more in depth. If God is who you say the Bible says He is then I will simply just have to say that these particular scriptures aren't Divinely inspired. I like the Scriptures that describe the fruit of the Spirit. They seem to be true in my life anyway. When I'm in the Spirit's presence I'm humble, content, at peace, thankful, joyful, self-controlled, faithful,
patient, kind, loving, forgiving, hopeful, etc., etc.
These are the things I strive for.
But anyway, good talking to you.
Cole said,
"If God is who you say the Bible says He is then I will simply just have to say that these particular scriptures aren't Divinely inspired. I like the Scriptures that describe the fruit of the Spirit. They seem to be true in my life anyway."
First-Order Cherry-Picking, that...
@Gear
I'm not surprised in the least when it comes to Cole.
He see's what he wants to see.
Jeffrey,
It seems like all of you miss the point about poison...since it is poisonous, then why isn't it simply labeled poison? Poison on the label DOES NOT make the seller or producer simply call it poison. The reason the makers do not do this, nor does the government require the name POISON to replace PINE SOL is because of CONTEXT...CONTEXT is that it is a cleaner. It can poison but that's NOT what it's intended to do...
I've haven't seen so many dim lights in one place in a long time...my goodness!!! U guys are unbelievable...
Jeffrey said:And your God is acting quite in accordance with the attributes He ascribes to himself. Vain. Jealous. Angry. Wrathful.
What God acted in accordance with was mercy that he didn't have to show...I mean after 400 years of suffering and promises as a people God decided to act. Call him late but this life is only part of the story...ooh I forgot, for the atheist a good 60 to 80 years is all he gets before he turns back into cosmic dust and slime...
You said:"The 3000 Hebrews the Levites killed were not because they were worshipping ANOTHER God, but because they were worshipping Yaweh in a way Yaweh found displeasing."
No, that's just it...they weren't worshipping Yahweh and they knew as much. They came from a system where the golden calf had been worshipped in Egypt as a symbol of one in the pantheon of gods. The picture is this...people have suffered and bled at the hands of the ones proclaiming the calf god and proclaiming that they have all power for 400 years...God delivers them miraculously, shows an awesome demonstration of his power to them face to face and the first thing they do after about 120 days is revive an idol that has been proven to be not only dead, but supportive of and indicative of the very thing that killed their families, raped their daughters, castrated their sons and stripped them of all their hopes and dreams for generations...Why don't you try to read the label but understand the true ingredients.
You said:"The murder of the firstborn of Egypt was, in your story, retribution for Egypt's enslavement of the Hebrews, yet who 'removed his hand' and allowed the Hebrews to be enslaved? Was Egypt not simply acting according to God's will in enslaving the Hebrews? Clearly God has no quarrel with slavery per se as he ratifies its existence repeatedly throughout the text.
God demonstrates his problem with slavery by delivering his people from it. They demonstrated no special reason to be free other than God wanted his people free. That's the lesson. 2- The whole scenario of blood only points to the blood that would be shed for remission of sins in Jesus. From the skins that God placed upon Adam and Eve, the promise of Gen. 3:15 until the shed blood and resurrection of Jesus in the NT, this was the whole demonstration was about God freeing his people and blessing them. He brought hope and used a nation to demonstrate his purpose so it couldn't be missed even by the most obtuse individuals...I guess atheists excluded huh?
SEE 2
Harvey,
Your argument about poison is fallacious... It's a distinction without a difference.
A distinction without a difference is a type of argument where one word or phrase is preferred to another, but results in no difference to the final outcome. It is particularly used when a word or phrase has connotations associated with it that one party to an argument prefers to avoid.
2
Jeffrey,
you said:"It is fascinating thatYou the Hebrews 'groan' in slavery for generations before God 'remembers' his covenant.
GOd never forgot his covenant nor his promise and there was noone and nothing to make him keep or maintain it except for the fact that he does not, could not and cannot lie...he certainly didn't. The time it took was only incidental. If he had done it earlier, you'discount it, if he did it last year or today, you'd discount it...ie: you don't care about slavery or Israels deliverance, you only care about God being some type of cosmic, personal bell-hop...he's not...Only his omniscience and time matters, not your, mine or anyone else's.
You said::"More importantly, the murder of the firstborn arises BECAUSE God CHOOSES to harden Pharaoh's heart rather than listen to Moses and Aaron.
FUNDY atheist ALERT!...Here we go...now who made the man hit his wife??? He says she made him do it...Since I now that flew over the nest, Pharaoh's heart was hardened by God's actions and the scripture indicates the deeper part that no matter what God got the glory. This was how the expression was used and relayed. Pharaoh, as god himself, hated God (sounds familiar) and took the opportunity to act out, ie: God hardened his heart...
You are silly to think that God would make the man freeze up then whack him...I'm sorry they messed you up with doctrine like that in some of these churches, but you really need to know, the god that you've constructed is not the God that the bible defends...
You said:"God is then presented with a large group of angry itinerant people. God's solution, invade your neighbors, burn their cities, kill their populations and take their land."
Another atheistic false assertion...God didn't tell Israel to kill all the inhabitants of the land...there were certain restrictions, boarders and agreements...secondly, God had revealed himself to the same people for twice as long and yet they rejected him too...alas Melchizedek, Jethro, and others who worship God out of nowhere...OK, I don't expect one to criticize the bible and really know it at the same time I guess...wow!
You said:"After coveting and stealing their neighbor's land"
You mean after receiving what was originally promised to them...a land deed given by the one who created the land???
You said certainly God could have appeared "the Amalekites and forestalled their invasion, but instead He issues an almost Bushian 'Bring em' On' warcry and then slaughters them himself. Again, based on a problem HE created."
Let's see, these were the same Amelekites who attacked the old, sick and lame and who were too cowardly to fight the regular army with their army...OK, now I see, you may think it's sporting to beat up old and sick folk huh??? You can’t think it sporting to abuse women and children right???
No, you type of twisted morality bleeds for the perpetrator of crime when he's going to the gas chamber for killing a family right??? You reverse the course of events and at the judgement and end of something that refuses to correct itself, you say they are the oppressed lot...Amalek deserved better right???? OOOOH BOY!!!
see 3
3
Jeffrey,
You said:"And there really isn't even any point in discussing the other cities directly destroyed by God's wrath, Sodom, Gomorrah."
Maybe there is...wasn't that place full of those homosexuals that should have faced mass genocide? I mean where does God get off killing all those people when the people were supposed to do that themselves??? Oooh, I forgot, that was before the Deuteronomy...my bad!!!
Now with this I agree and only ask that you expand your argument:"We have a large group of dirty itinerant fanatics who exist right now who truly believe they are doing God's work. They declared war on us. Invaded our country. Murdered our citizens. Set our buildings aflame. They call themselves al'Qaeda"
Fanaticism, my friend, comes in non-religious forms also. Don't be blind to that. But your statement is on point and unless believers such as myself and good citizens such as you point this out, things will never change...
So I'll end on a positive note of agreement.
Les,
My argument regarding poison is highly tenable...what is interpreted out of context is of no effect for the purpose for which it is created...Pine Sol was made to be a cleaning agent, not an agent whereby people are killed...The label says poison but to use it as such is ignorance at it's highest...
The bible says many things and to take what it says out of context with no regard for reason, situation and context is also ignorance to the highest order...you don't do this with natural things such as PINE SOL, why do it with the bible unless you have a bias and a presupposition to begin with...
Your imposed fallacy is false!
Quote minig of scripture is about the most irresponsible thing in the world when there is no context...Yet atheists do it all day to bolster their case then when a Christian offers scripture you say, "you can't use the bible!"
What a crok!
Look, a man's picture is hanging in the post office. It says, "WANTED for armed robbery"...you know what that means and what it's saying right???
Imagine we're mobsters for a minute...we're planning a heist...I show you a piucture of Willie, and tell you to go get him because we want him for an armed robbery...
Did you hear the words "because of"? but yet you know which situation above calls for those words to be inserted in place of "for" now don't you? That is unless you play ignorant and you'll get whacked in the second instance for sure...
Quote all the scriptures that you believe God has ordered genocide, without context they mean nothing and your argument is not only weak, it's silly.
Matt, you don't see a reductio adsurdium when one is provided do you.
"glad to see we agree that in the bible it supports that god murdered children."
How can the Infinite Owner and Creator of the universe be guilty of anything unlawful? When He determines what the Law is - as well as every single heart beat and sustains every single electron orbital...
You don't realize how ridiculous it is to accuse the Holy Creator of something unlawful. He determines (imperfect word)/ordains (imperfect)/controls (in control - but both are imperfect as to what is taking place with choices and free will)/together acts with all circumstances and creates the universe knowing the outcome of all finite choices...
God murders (unlawful? killing) all of us so the word is deemed meaningless when it comes bringing a charge against the Owner and Creator and LawGiver.
It is utterly ridiculous to ever accuse God of "murder." If He orders a judgment or if He brings about destruction and brings people home (or sends them to judgement) it has always been in the Holy Creators to control.
It doesn't matter whether you die of old age or if you die of cancer or get hit by a car or die in a plane crash. It's all perfect judgment or grace.
This is what you do not appear to understand.
@ ds (DM?) did you mean reductio AD adsurdium? Disproving an idea by showing that it leads to absurd conclusions? sure i do. the bible disproves its own conclusions in this manner all the time. example: god let his people fall into slavery, then saved them from the slavery he allowed them to fall into, by murdering children all across the land of egypt, therby showing everyone that he is a god of love and peace and superhappyfuntime. you mean like that, right? reductio AD adsurdium. our next fancy 10 dollar word of the day is "contradiction". can you say it with me? "kon-truh-dik-shuhn"
@breckmin alright, i will play the semantics game with you. i herby change my word from "murder" to "slaughter". so, "glad to see we agree that in the bible it supports that god SLAUGHTERED children." nothing illegal or immoral about THAT, right? i suppose if god decided to come to america and SLAUGHTER our children to show us how wicked and off track we are, you'd say "what a wonderful and loving god, to teach us the error of our ways in such a fine way.", or better yet, if god SLAUGHTERED all the muslim children to show them the error of their ways, would you fall to your knees and rejoice, thanking him in your heart for being so loving? your "god" is above the rules because he made them? would you like that privilge extended to your government as well, or is that only reserved for the "divine"? a god or government that uses fear and atrocity to emphasize its demand for subservience from those it has complete authority over is known as a TYRANT or DESPOT, and there have been many throught history, NONE tolerated for very long. except of course, GOD. so sayeth the WORD
@ harvey you said "Maybe there is...wasn't that place full of those homosexuals that should have faced mass genocide? I mean where does God get off killing all those people when the people were supposed to do that themselves????
WOW!!! tell us how you REALLY feel about homosexuals, why don't you? i hope the local gay community in peoria doeasn't stumble across THAT little jem of a quote. you might be accused of being a tad HOMOPHOBIC.
my favorite part is " those homosexuals that should have faced mass genocide?" . so are you advocating mass genocide against homosexuals, as long as god does the dirty work? kinda seems like it.
District Supt. Harvey Burnett,
You have called those who don't believe in your invisible deity "God haters". Are you an "Allah hater"? a "Ra hater"?, etc. Out of the many thousands of gods you seemed to have picked the right one. How lucky for you. You must be very smart.
I am not a "god hater" because it would be odd to hate an imaginary character. The god concept only exists within your mind. It is a delusion.
Since "context" seems to be your word of the day, this video seems appropriate
http://www.youtube.com/user/nonstampcollector#p/u/20/PK7P7uZFf5o
Breckmin,
"How can the Infinite Owner and Creator of the universe be guilty of anything unlawful?"
"You don't realize how ridiculous it is to accuse the Holy Creator of something unlawful."
You do realize that when "God" demanded that his followers kill men, women, children, unborn babies, livestock and burn down cities, that is seems to always come from a single man hearing voices in his head. The leader who hears these voices hears Kill! Kill! Kill! "it's the word of the Lord!"
What if he heard it wrong? If you say that the man could never get it wrong then aren't you also saying that the dear leader is perfect when he hears voices in his head?
It must have been a real power trip to be able to say anything you want and all you had to do is say "thus says the Lord" and no-one could question you.
@ harvey. you said "God demonstrates his problem with slavery by delivering his people from it." i'm assuming your refering to the exodus/egypt stream we have been discussing.
so, i would ask, why did god tell moses at mt sinai " However, you may purchase male or female slaves from among the foreigners who live among you. You may also purchase the children of such resident foreigners, including those who have been born in your land. You may treat them as your property, passing them on to your children as a permanent inheritance. You may treat your slaves like this, but the people of Israel, your relatives, must never be treated this way. (Leviticus 25:44-46 NLT)
that seems contradictary to your statement that god had a problem with slavery. or was moses lying when he claimed god said this? i would also point out that this was said to moses not long AFTER he "demonstrates his problem with slavery by delivering his people from it". seems like a contradiction in the bible. say it with me. "kon-truh-dik-shuhn"
so sayeth the word of the lord in his book. or doesnt say it, depending on the real, "hidden" meaning that only scholars from the future were meant to understand i guess.
Matt the Magnificent...
I hear you very clearly. I truly wish that Harvey/Cole/et al could hear you as well as I do. It's such a shame the contortions that these people's minds go through when trying to debate former Christians/religiously inclined people such as us. It's only been 2 years or so since I finally came out as an atheist.
If we could only get these people to actually READ the fucking bible as an outside observer... That's the hard part. They can't see anything except through their religious goggles.
They have mantras and dogma that almost automatically kicks in when you affront them with the facts in the bible.
I too used to defend the bible in this manner and it wasn't until I stepped back from trying to defend it that I could see the text for what it was... That I finally realized how screwed up it all is.
If I was the praying sort and a believer in a deistic god I'd almost say I'd pray to that god to help these people remove the blinders of their faith.
Funny thing is that they recognize clearly the delusions of followers of other religions but they just can't see it in themselves...
@ les What i like about it is the bible reads as a historical autobiography of a group of authors. now, if you take a modern day autobiography, like say for example pete rose, noone says "when pete says "this" he really meant "this", because pete is still around and can say "no, i meant what i said".
but after time passes and the author dies, like winston churchill for example, then people start second guessing the authors meaning and writing new explainations about what the author said, because the author is not around to refute them. The respect for the author and his choice of words is no longer honored, and in fact used to prove the interpreters OWN thoughts on the idea origionally expressed, and in fact sometimes is fully refuted to support the "interpreter"; and the further back in time we go, the more people seem to feel they need to interpret for "actual meaning" what an author says, in the interpreters views. and the bible is the humdinger of all books that people feel the need to "interpret". i bet when moses was around, noone disputed or tried to explain what he "really" meant what he wrote (if indeed he truly wrote it).
christianity cannot justify the things written in the bible supporting a god who kills based on anger or lack of proper worship, so they dispute it by not disputing it, but "explaining" what it "really" means through "interpretation".
Matt,
the thing I have a hard time understanding about critics such as you Jefferey and the like is the total seeming obliviousness of any type or kind of judgement against personal freedom and responsibility.
I mean I can tell you're defense attorneys taking the worst possible cases and arguing that your client, the criminal, the murderer, the rapist, the pedophile, was justified for their actions and he should get some type of special pass because the victim should have either locked their doors, wore the right clothes, or not been out on the playground by themselves. these sum up your sentiments and all of them are TOTALLY ridiculous to me, not to mention highly irrational.
When it comes to God, I know It's in part because you don't believe in sin. You have no clue as to the seriousness of idolatry or any of the things that these nations outlined did, including Israel.
Ie: You construct a God based on your human nature and understanding of that nature and place your moral constraints based on HIM as if he were simply human...You display that you have no regard for the utterly debase capacity of human nature and the standards you impose are human standards placed upon GOd, a living being, who's capacity of foreknowledge and forethought are beyond infinitely greater than yours.
Now, not having an understanding is not necessarily a a bad thing when one is open to discovery and finding out the "why" and the moral obligation of God to communicate to you and us (if he has any). For certain, he has done so and like FOX news "you decide" whether you want to believe or not...
The part that I find especially interesting is that none of your statements are tempered with the FACT that there is judgement for disobedience whether civil (called crime) or spiritual (called sin and rebellion)
These events didn't happen in a vacuum. These people were told and it was rehearsed to them since they could talk. Their history, their purpose, their promise was given to them early on. Anyone who studies ANE cultures know the vast difference between how community and national history is transferred in those cultures as opposed to ours. From the time that these could talk this is what they learned their history and about their GOd. They learned their uniqueness and what God promised to do through them for the world. Then HE shows up and they reward HIM by clinging to an idol and worshipping it over HIM...
Just answer this radical, do you believe that humanity is inherently good???
Then answer this, then why are there police, armies and why are there wars? Keep in mind religious wars are not a great part of wars historically and neither WWI or WWII was over religion....
So what constrains this humanity and how is it good?
Matt pulls out a NLT to quote part of a missive in Leviticus...I guess it's just a liberals playground over here huh?
Here's the verses pertaining to what he is saying in full KJV:
"44-Both thy bondmen, and thy bondmaids, which thou shalt have, shall be of the heathen that are round about you; of them shall ye buy bondmen and bondmaids. 45-Moreover of the children of the strangers that do sojourn among you, of them shall ye buy, and of their families that are with you, which they begat in your land: and they shall be your possession. 46-And ye shall take them as an inheritance for your children after you, to inherit them for a possession; they shall be your bondmen for ever: but over your brethren the children of Israel, ye shall not rule one over another with rigour. 47-And if a sojourner or stranger wax rich by thee, and thy brother that dwelleth by him wax poor, and sell himself unto the stranger or sojourner by thee, or to the stock of the stranger's family: 48-After that he is sold he may be redeemed again; one of his brethren may redeem him: 49-Either his uncle, or his uncle's son, may redeem him, or any that is nigh of kin unto him of his family may redeem him; or if he be able, he may redeem himself. 50-And he shall reckon with him that bought him from the year that he was sold to him unto the year of jubile: and the price of his sale shall be according unto the number of years, according to the time of an hired servant shall it be with him. 51-If there be yet many years behind, according unto them he shall give again the price of his redemption out of the money that he was bought for. 52-And if there remain but few years unto the year of jubile, then he shall count with him, and according unto his years shall he give him again the price of his redemption. 53-And as a yearly hired servant shall he be with him: and the other shall not rule with rigour over him in thy sight. 54-And if he be not redeemed in these years, then he shall go out in the year of jubile, both he, and his children with him. 55-For unto me the children of Israel are servants; they are my servants whom I brought forth out of the land of Egypt: I am the LORD your God.
There are two things found here that refute every silly argument that has been made here...1- If there are servants purchased they were supposed to be from "the heathen round about them". now it has been consistently claimed that there was utter destruction of women and children and abuse etc...The scripture in NA WAY affirms or even suggests that. So the point that God utterly kills all the enemies etc...is false by using the same scripture that you use to set up that false premise...
2- The whole story IN CONTEXT is the story of redeeming the slave or bound into freedom...Jubilee was every 50 years followed by the 7 sabbathic years. The scripture actually prescribes that the owner or purchaser would take part in setting their servant free...
Now, WHAT system of slavery prescribed that in ANE cultures or even modern cultures?
When you understand that slavery is a product of sin and that God through sin has a prescription for his people to follow that is to this day different than how cultures apply it, then some type of light should come on, in light of the fact that God delivers a SLAVE people, Israel for bondage as an implication of what he would do through Jesus.
Like I said CONTEXT!!! Quote whatever you want, but there is a such thing a being responsible which the radical certainly isn't.
It's not about standing on the outside, it's about a true search for truth wherever that truth is found...you not liking it doesn't make it untrue.
ok harvey. You seem to be assigning a lot of "interpretations" of what i have said, while i have tried to keep it simple. no i am not a lawyer, i do not defend pedophiles, any more than i would defend a mass murderer of children, as you seem to do, since you do not answer the question at hand, which is thus: does the bible say these things about god, that he commited genocide on children, did he tell moses slavery was ok, or did he not? and that is my point. i have no concern regarding weather or not it was "justifiable genocide" as you seem to keep implying. am i supposed to "understand" that god was right in killing children to free his people from slavery? is that what your point is? because it doesn't seem to me that anyone, god or man, killing children would be an approriate response to "his people" being enslaved.
as to wars, my point earlier to beautiful feet was this and this only. AFTER jesus came and spread his message of love and turning the other cheek and christianity became a dominate belief in europe, why is it that for over a thousand years that message of love and hope was interpreted to be ENFORCED on others, through conquest of nations, suppression and murder of women, scientists, theft of gold(aztecs for example) and so on? that doesnt seem very christian.
my final point is this. either the bible is truth, as written by its authors, or it is not. so acknolege that the bible is fact as written, or it is fiction, in which case i say that if it is fiction it proves nothing as to the existence or nature of god. also, see my previous post about autobiographies.
Harvey,
You're mistaken. The periodic freeing of slaves applied to Hebrew slaves, not to foreign slaves. Also, it did not apply to female Israelite slaves at all. Only male Hebrews could be freed after a period of 7 years. In other words, the Hebrew institution of slavery was not progressive; it was racist and sexist.
Moreover, a slaveowner was permitted by Mosaic law to beat his slave, so long as he didn't beat his slave to death. However, the prohibition of beating a slave to death only applied to instantaneous death. If the slave died days after the beating, the slaveowner was not legally liable.
So I'm confused. What was that you were saying about selective use of the materials?
at harvey. so your contention is that god allows man to own slaves but has to free them at jubilee. i fail to see how that shows god doesn't condone slavery. it just shows gods version of slavery. which i suppose 50 years may seem a "humane" term of forced, paid for enslavement to you, but to me it doesn't. but hey, i'm not god. i don't believe in slavery period.
Thom,
You said:"You're mistaken. The periodic freeing of slaves applied to Hebrew slaves, not to foreign slaves."
I made no such distinction. We're talking about the institution of slavery in general are we not? In the institution of slavery in general is there a "periodic freeing" commanded, demanded pr prescribed? Produce for me an ANE reference from a culture that had slaves that offered such a prescription, or command. One may exist but I haven't seen one, maybe you have access to one for my review...
You said:" Also, it did not apply to female Israelite slaves at all. Only male Hebrews could be freed after a period of 7 years."
Incorrect.
Maybe you never read what God thought about such practice in 2 Chron. 28:8-11. Since you haven't I'll cite it here:
"8-And the children of Israel carried away captive of their brethren two hundred thousand, women, sons, and daughters, and took also away much spoil from them, and brought the spoil to Samaria. 9-But a prophet of the LORD was there, whose name was Oded: and he went out before the host that came to Samaria, and said unto them, Behold, because the LORD God of your fathers was wroth with Judah, he hath delivered them into your hand, and ye have slain them in a rage that reacheth up unto heaven. 10-And now ye purpose to keep under the children of Judah and Jerusalem for bondmen and bondwomen unto you: but are there not with you, even with you, sins against the LORD your God? 11-Now hear me therefore, and deliver the captives again, which ye have taken captive of your brethren: for the fierce wrath of the LORD is upon you
As I said there is no context only a literal rendering of law to your assertions and that's what i find most lacking in your writing as I've seen it so far.
So The captivity of women was deplored by God and obviously at HIS word the women were freed.
So that little caveat kind debunks this statement:"the Hebrew institution of slavery was not progressive; it was racist and sexist."
It was certainly male centered but God always made provision for women obviously.
You said:"Moreover, a slaveowner was permitted by Mosaic law to beat his slave, so long as he didn't beat his slave to death."
So obviously there was constraint and restriction on how one could handle a slave. Were they considered property or human beings under this system? please specify and distinguish the difference.
@ Dist
You don't like what the text explicitly states, so you demand that we place the explicit text in context. You don't like the context that we provide, so you demand that we place the context in DEEP context. Once we supply the DEEP context, I suppose we will need a lifetime of study of the DEEP context in order to not see the contradictions.
You fail to see how little this argument does to advance your case. Even if I were to concede and assume arguendo that you are correct, that when placed in the correct context, the Bible is internally consistent and internally logical, and that God's alleged cruelty is in fact mercy, this does NOTHING to prove the Bible. It merely indicates that the Bible is internally consistent and adheres to its own internal logic. Even if I were to concede this point, it in NO way implies that the Bible is TRUE in any way shape or form. I can grant the EXACT same concession to the Quran. Or Dianetics. Or The Book of Mormon. Or the Necronomicon. Or the Lord of the Rings. Or Harry Potter.
I can freely acknowledge these works' internal consistency and internal logic and what exactly does that achieve? Internal coherence and logic neither signifies nor necessitates any external truth. Internal coherence is merely the signifier of good fiction. Nothing more.
This is why you can't use the bible to prove the bible to us. Anymore than a Mulsim can use the Quran to prove the Quran to you. We can concede the point if we are feeling magnanimous because ultimately it does nothing to advance your argument.
You on the other hand, must defend to the death the words written therein, because to you, conceding on this point would be tantamount to losing the entire argument. You actually seem to believe that these words are literally true. We are being NICE arguing the Bible you solely on its terms. The fact that you have routinely pretzelized yourself trying to say that X is not X because we have the context wrong is just sad.
"When you buy a male Hebrew slave, he shall serve six years, but in the seventh he shall go out a free person, without debt. . . . When a man sells his daughter as a slave, she shall not go out as the male slaves do." (Exod 21:2, 7)
"When a slaveowner strikes a male or female slave with a rod and the slave dies immediately, the owner shall be punished. But if the slave survives a day or two, there is no punishment; for the slave is the owner's property. (Exod 21:20)
at harvey. earlier you posted "and they shall be your possession. 46-And ye shall take them as an inheritance for your children after you, to inherit them for a possession;"
and now you postulate: "Were they considered property or human beings under this system? please specify and distinguish the difference."
so i'm going to assume that since it says "posession" your going to say that doesn't mean "property". and is a human being not a human being, regardless of status as slave or owner? your starting to grasp at straws i think. so again, did god support or dissavow slavery? i think support. it says so in the bible.
Matt,
I think what most of us look for is a spcific command "THOU SHALT NOT HAVE SLAVES" and say that would have been what God should have said.
God has revealed himself by command but commands do what people look to do with them, they find how close they can walk to the edge without violating it. Therefore God has taken the additional step and revealed his nature through his acts also.
All of these things and more provide the context that I refer to. These things don't conflict, they only reveal a greater purpose. What many readers see as law, hard and fast, is the starting point from where GOd reveals his character which includes his mercy, love and judgement.
Look, if I've implied that this is easy to understand I'm sorry and apologize to anyone and everyone I've offended. All I'm saying is that many times a few scriptures simply can't be quoted and a case made based on that.
i dont get it. are we supposed to read the bible in the "context" of moses's written intention, for example, or from gods "context", or from harvey's "context", or the popes "context"? how confusing. if only when it was written they had meant what they actually wrote, us athiests would be able to understand it and better argue our points from the correct "context" so people could understand us and not be so frustrated with our stupidity.
@ Dist.
Also, I would like to take a moment to discuss our point of Agreement.
Clearly you believe in knowledge through General and Special Revelation. That God reveals knowledge to humans. He revealed himself to Moses to provide the first covenant. Then revealed himself to or through Jesus to refine that covenant.
On the basis of Revelatory knowledge, is it not possible that God revealed himself to Muhammed in much the same way he revealed himself to Jesus in order to further refine the covenant? This is certainly what Muslims believe. How are you certain which is correct? How are you certain that the revelation to Muhammed was not the correct refinement and that Jesus was not an imposter.
Further, Osama bin Laden clearly feels as though he has been the recipient of revealed knowledge and is acting with deep conviction on this belief. His followers are so convinced of this that they are willing to die for their cause.
Given your obvious preference for Revealed Knowledge to empirical knowledge, how can you condemn al'Qaeda for following the path of knowledge that has been revealed to them? How can you prove that they have NOT been the recipients of Revealed knowledge, that they are NOT working at his direction? And if they ARE working at his direction, are they not blameless?
Obviously I am not defending them. I think Revealed Knowledge is a huge pile of rubbish - a refuge for lunatics and psychopaths, but I am curious how supporters of Revealed Knowledge would disprove their assertions.
Jeffrey,
The internal consistency thing is ok, but thsi isn't the argument to "prove" God.
If we're talking about a subject we've got to confine ourselves to the analysius of that subject. This is not a subject that proves nor disproves the existence of God although the critic takes that position.
Thom,
The problem I have with your writing is that although you claim to be a liberal, you're about one of the biggest fundys I've ever seen.
As I stated you can quote what you will, but look at how God judged those situations when they are presented in sciopture and you can come to a better understanding of what was actually being said.
As requested, are their restrictions on the treatment of slaves from other ANE cultures and are there freedom provisions in literature that we have found to date?
I don't know the answer, but since you are calling the professors into question, this is an area that you should be loaded to address and enlighten us on espceially since you don't see any difference between slavery as outlined within scripture and anything else.
Matt,
I'm not that smart. I wasn't going there with that. I have to reread your comment because I may want to use that approach sometime. Thanks.
I agree. "I think what most of us look for is a spcific command "THOU SHALT NOT HAVE SLAVES" and say that would have been what God should have said." god should have said that. but he didnt. he said "have slaves".(paraphasing). he spelled out the rules for having slaves. he said when to sell them.he spells out when and how to beat them.he spells out how hard to beat them. so i'm sorry, but it says this in the bible.
so again, either god supports and condones this kind of behaviour and the bible is truth, or this is a false statement made by a writer of the bible, (moses included specifically as stating god said own slaves), which means the bible is most likely a work of fiction in which the writers used imaginary conversations with god to create laws that govern mankind and its behavior on his behalf. this in turn supports that if there were no conversations with god, then god does not exist as the christian or jewish or biblical peoples claim. making christianity, although fairly noble in its promotion of morality, completely fabricated on a myth of lies and deceit extending back to its very foundation.
(man, i am ON FIRE today!!!)
Harvey,
Don't make me responsible for your own ignorance.
Good-bye.
Jeffrey,
you pointed out:Clearly you believe in knowledge through General and Special Revelation."
In addition to knowledge reveald and learned through study etc...
You said:"Then revealed himself to or through Jesus to refine that covenant."
Terms regarding this can be very important. If Jesus is god as I believe he is, then the knowledge of God was further revealed to us through Jesus. This makes the total distinction for the rest of your commentary here.
You said:"On the basis of Revelatory knowledge, is it not possible that God revealed himself to Muhammed in much the same way he revealed himself to Jesus in order to further refine the covenant?"
Impossible. The situations are totally different. 1- God was in Jesus reconciling the world to himself and 2- Muhammad amde no claims to be God, exercised no authority over the elements, sickness and disease as God and demonstrated no power over death by resurrection.
Could Muhammad have had an encounter with God? Certainly. Did that encounter lead him to Jesus for salvation? NO. That's why the recitation is in question, it is not subject to the authority of Jesus.
You asked:"How are you certain which is correct? How are you certain that the revelation to Muhammed was not the correct refinement and that Jesus was not an imposter."
Because that CAT DIED. Jesus Lives! Even though that deals with paganism in general I would use the same basic principles to discern the truth of Muhammd and his message.
You said:"Given your obvious preference for Revealed Knowledge to empirical knowledge,"
Now, that isn't fair <:(
You said:"how can you condemn al'Qaeda for following the path of knowledge that has been revealed to them?"
1- That knowledge doesn't communicate salvation and peace to the mankind as revealed through and by Jesus and based on that it ultimately dishonors the creation of God since we now live in the time of grace and truth. We have law and judgement, but we do not live under them exclusively currently. (now there's a lot more to that than I can go into here)
You said:"How can you prove that they have NOT been the recipients of Revealed knowledge, that they are NOT working at his direction?"
The fruit of their actions pretty much display where they are coming from and their motivations and inspirations. It can all be traced to men and a false god called Allah...
You stated:"Obviously I am not defending them."
We know this and your point is well taken. As stated earlier there are all kinds of fixations and delusions from which men suffer taht cause them to do horrible things. Don't be blindsided thinking religion is the progenator of these thigns. This crap comes from the evil and deep dark capacity of men's hearts whether they are religious or not.
@ Dist.
But you're merely expressing a Revelatory preference. Like a Star Wars fan arguing why Star Wars is better than Star Trek. You prefer one strain of Revelation but not another. As has been pointed out, the actions of the Hebrews in response to the Revealed Knowledge was savage, brutal, barbaric. The actions of many of the early Christians was savage, brutal, barbaric. If we cannot use those actions to discredit the fundamental peacefulness and love inherent in their Revelation, how can you argue that it is valid to do so for Islam?
You assert that Allah is a 'False God' but you base that assertion again, merely on Revelatory preference. Both Gods authorize some pretty brutal things. You prefer the Revelation of a Trinitarian Deity who Incarnated to that of a Unitarian Deity who speaks through Men. They find your belief system to be polytheistic and anathema. Your preference does not ipso facto render one valid and the other invalid any more than theirs does.
This is precisely WHY we do not accept Revelatory Knowledge without corroborating evidence. Why we do not accept what the Bible says as proof that the Bible is true or any more than we accept the Quran or any of the other myriad Sacred Texts purporting to fill us with Revelatory Truth.
This is why we are willing to get down in the trenches and argue the Bible on its own terms even though we don't believe it, because the Word is really all you guys have, the last redoubt.
Mr Jeffery A. Meyers is also ON FIRE today!!!
matt the magnificent: Mr Jeffery A. Meyers is also ON FIRE today!!!
Seconded. Boom!
@ Dist.
I forgot to respond to one of your earlier questions.
Yes. I do think that humanity possesses an inherent tendency towards good. As Martin Luther King said, the arc of the moral Universe is long, but it bends towards justice. I personally think the myth of original sin and the doctrine of the fallen nature of man and man's sinfulness to be among the most destructive and pernicious abominations in history.
In the aggregate, the entire arc of human history is a song to the 'better angels' of humankind. The world we live in is heavenly, a paradise, compared to the hellhole the ancients inhabited. It is wholly unsurprising to me that the ancient texts describe such an angry God - the world they inhabited was unbelievably harsh, sadistic, cruel, capricious and violent. They were only a half step away from being wholly at the mercy of the natural world.
Death from famine, disease, plague, war, was not an abstract concern, it was a daily reality. Death was entertainment as evidenced by the crucifixions, public executions, blood sport and other atrocities the ancients flocked to watch.
You cite World War I and II as evidence that the modern world is just as violent and harsh and cruel, but you fail to understand that while numerically, more people were killed during those wars than any other, that as a percentage of the human population, those wars were far LESS destructive than the ancient wars of the Hebrews, the Romans, the Hittites, etc. And the ancients managed to inflict that level of violence without any manner of advanced weaponry. Imagine how brutal the Romans would have been if they'd possessed tanks and planes.
But interestingly, human society continues to refine itself, to progress, to create societies of greater freedom, of greater integration, greater diversity, greater acceptance, greater organization. We no longer actively persecute those different from themselves on the basis of such foolish criteria as race, gender, ethnicity, sexual orientation, etc., and those who do so are rightly condemned. We no longer tolerate slavery. We no longer tolerate naked bigorty. And while we have (sadly) taken a slight detour on the torture front because of terrorism, the rest of the world is rightly shocked and appalled by our present lapse.
We have more people living on this planet than at any time in history, theoretically, our evil natures would result in some manner of Hobbesian war of all against all, yet the vast, vast, vast majority of the world's population live quite peacefully with their neighbors. Our world has never been more peaceful, prosperous, free. And ironically, the MOST peaceful, prosperous, giving, egalitarian nations in the world are the LEAST religious of all - those who have consiciously shunned the Divine Path.
To be sure, our origins, were violent, chaotic, prone to fits of anger and ecstatic rage - much like an infant throwing a tantrum. But our society has evolved, matured, grown. A testament to the humanity's inherent tendency towards good - a hymn to the better angels of our nature.
Harvey,
You quoted: You said:"How can you prove that they have NOT been the recipients of Revealed knowledge, that they are NOT working at his direction?"
You responded: "The fruit of their actions pretty much display where they are coming from and their motivations and inspirations. It can all be traced to men and a false god called Allah...
This is precisely what most of Christianity has been throughout human history. Even in America until about 150 years ago Christians burned people alive in the name of Jesus.
Generally speaking, the main difference between Al Qaeda and Christianity is about 500 years. The next time you see on TV the 'fruits' of radical Islam know that you are looking back in time to your false religion and evil made up god.
One thing is clear, we do have some information regarding ANE slavery which the critic doesn't often set forth...When we look at it, Paul Copan is correct. ANE slavers was different in most cases than the slavery we know today.
Homer in his Odyssey (8th Century BCE) states that slaves were to be faithful and dedicated to their master's interests and those who weren't should be rightfully tortured and killed.
This was the common treatment of slaves during his Greek era. Backing it up we see two common reasons that slaves were made:
1- Prisoner of War where the victors took the spoils and enslaved the people and
2- Enslavement for debt
3- Being inherited as a slave.
This was common and the bible shows all common types of enslavement. I've already talked about 2 Chronicles as stated where certain Jews defeated other Jews in battle and took other Jews in slavery and God wasn't pleased, but also look at the slavery of Jacob to Laban in Genesis 31 as he worked to pay off his debt 20 years for Laban's daughter (daughters)...
Was he whooped or disgraced? How was he treated as a slave in Israel? Laban's dispute was over Jacob's coming to fortune and becoming an equal heir, not on some whipping post or because he didn't carry the water right.
So the question that the resident scholar should ask since he's criticizing the men who have spoken clearly on the topic is how was slavery in Israel different.
We know that the Sumarian codes indicate that slaves were treated as chattle or property, Hammurabi introduced certain citizenship rights but offered a much harsher punishments and to the extent of torture upon disobedient slaves and continued the view of slaves as property. Not until the Hittite Codes do we see slaves treated as people.
As we can see clearly from scripture the slave had rights, but so did other slaves to some extent. The primary methods to enslavement were:
1- manumission (release by the master)
2- adoption of the slave and
3- self-purchase
The Jews introduced 2 additional ways as stated earlier:
5- Manumission at or close to jubilee and
6- manumission because of maltreatment leading to permanent injury.
This applied to foreign born slaves as well as to those of Hebrew birth.
In short the Jews considered slaves human with rights and restrictions against person embarrassment. They were not supposed to be put to shame or disgraced.
What Copan has stated and that I agree with as a person from a race of people who have suffered enslavement for centuries, is that Jewish slavery was not the same as the slavery as peoples surrounding during that time and neither was it the same as modern or American slavery which most of you reference. It certainly was NOT the desired condition or state of living, I WOULD NOT have signed up, but when the alternatives were considered it was better than other nations because of the scriptural restrictions.
So call God's morality into question but you yet see him freeing slaves, freeing a nation that got themselves into slavery and liberating both men and women throughout the bible yet establishing laws as restrictions for those such as you, who need a guideline before you can treat someone fairly.
Now Thom has called me selective with sources but unless it's in his book, (which I haven't read) he in no wise points any of this out.
Zombody,
You said:"This is precisely what most of Christianity has been throughout human history. Even in America until about 150 years ago Christians burned people alive in the name of Jesus."
not if that's not the greatest LIE ever told it certainly is the greatest novel speculation...now there were 17 to 18 people that were ever killed for being a witch...17 to 18 through all of history in the name of Christ...and that was long before 150 years ago...
This is called a garbage argument and adds nothing to the subject, but at least get the facts straight.
you said:"Generally speaking, the main difference between Al Qaeda and Christianity is about 500 years."
Oooh that's VERY "generally" indeed. Christian and Islam in no way exchanges either method of salvation, purpose for salvation or epistemological reasons for faith. this is a night and day difference...once again another novel speculation shared by the radical and die hard faithful atheist crowd.
You said:"The next time you see on TV the 'fruits' of radical Islam know that you are looking back in time to your false religion and evil made up god."
PLEASE spare me the erroneous history lessons here...as stated more people have been killed throughout history in secular conflicts than any other in history.
Like I said earlier VOX DAY(who certainly doesn't claim to be a Christian apologist)clears up all the lies perpetuated by the current atheist deception regarding this...read that.
My people, the Indians were certainly done wrong, but it wasn't in the name of the Lord, it was for land rights and use. Flat out lied to, stolen from and cheated, but they're coming back...
Apologists arguing against there being children present among the peoples who were destroyed in the hand of (or by command of) Yahweh, are OF COURSE stretching it.
The REAL issue, is centered around the use of the word "murder" when applied to these acts of Yahweh. Because when applying it, it presupposes the act was immoral.
What the question on the table should actually be then is: IS it moral? THAT's what should be debated, NOT whether there are "any" instances in which Yahweh kills children. Of course there are. It is rightly called strenuous and desperate to argue otherwise.
Harvey,
Slavery was alive and well in early United States (you know, a christian nation). We all know ALL slavery (owning another member of our species) is evil. You realize that if you lived back then you would have most likely been included in that, how do you frame it, a lovely institution of higher learning and reason. We should all wish to be slaves. Wouldn't that be just neat? Ah... Those loving masters. They give us free room and board.
Oh snap! Christians are slaves - slaves to Christ. How they love their slavery.
The christian bible was used to justify such horrors.
But you're the most smartest person I have ever met. I wish I could be just like you: looking down and all those 'little people' that don't realize and appreciate your big brain. Those heathens!
You quoted: "you said:"Generally speaking, the main difference between Al Qaeda and Christianity is about 500 years."
You replied: Oooh that's VERY "generally" indeed. Christian and Islam in no way exchanges either method of salvation, purpose for salvation or epistemological reasons for faith."
You misunderstood. I was not comparing the fairy tale belief systems. I was comparing the barbarism, cruelty and war.
Through secularism, including the secular US Constitution, non-superstitious people are taming the beast of religion.
...and I don't understand why you refer or infer that atheists are all the same. I only deconverted after decades of evangelical christianity a year ago. I used to tried to convince non believers to believe me. I used to think I was smarter than they were.
Once I took a half-step back and looked at the religion and the bible as if for the first time, I realized that this is a truly horrific book, all driven by an imaginary puppeteer.
I hope one day you break free and just for a few minutes set aside your biases and actually read the bible as-is.
Zombody: "Even in America until about 150 years ago Christians burned people alive in the name of Jesus."
Firstly: Source please. Thanks.
Secondly: In the 20th century countless millions died int he name of opposition to religion. I guess opposition to religion is evil.
John: Please encourage your guests to think. Thanks. :)
PS: How come people can no longer comment with a nickname/url, but actually need to log into their Google account? Is it to prevent links back to their website?
Jeffrey,
Hate to rain on your party but you may BE on fire one day, but certainly not today...
you said:Yes. I do think that humanity possesses an inherent tendency towards good.
Then why are police and armies necessary? Why are there territorial disputes etc?
This really takes the cake. you quote:"As Martin Luther King said, the arc of the moral Universe is long, but it bends towards justice."
now that was fantastic coming from an atheist quoting someone who believe that GOD would ultimately bring justice...ie: no God, no justice...there is no such thing as ultimate justice with out God in fact.
You said;"I personally think the myth of original sin and the doctrine of the fallen nature of man and man's sinfulness to be among the most destructive and pernicious abominations in history."
Most sinners do
You said:"In the aggregate, the entire arc of human history is a song to the 'better angels' of humankind."
OK Paul Kurtz...replace the city of God with the city of humanity right??? oooh boy(yawn-sigh!!!)
You said:"The world we live in is heavenly, a paradise, compared to the hellhole the ancients inhabited."
you must not watch and read the same news as me...wars, disaster, fires, hurricanes, displaced lives and countless of murders off the hook...Are you dreaming about those "better angels" again???
You said:"It is wholly unsurprising to me that the ancient texts describe such an angry God"
Or does the text describe and establish the holiness of God and why there must be a savior if we're ever to truly be at peace with God and men??? Perspective is something else isn't it???
You said:"Death from famine, disease, plague, war, was not an abstract concern, it was a daily reality."
OK, then about 25,000 did die of starvation today, or there was certainly no cancer, heart disease or other tragic deaths today right? heck they say some 822 died in the hospital today alone as a result of hospital and medical error. Not to mention no 30,000 that are homeless in Detroit every night...how about Bosnia, Darfur and any number of countries I can name right now...
THIS is your paradise???? WOW!
You said:you fail to understand that while numerically, more people were killed during those wars than any other, that as a percentage of the human population, those wars were far LESS destructive than the ancient wars of the Hebrews, the Romans, the Hittites, etc. And the ancients managed to inflict that level of violence without any manner of advanced weaponry."
All of those wars WERE NOT religious wars. Ancient war wasn't simply over religion. People fought with their convictions I'm sure, but don't overstate and hand all the ancient conflicts to religion. that's inaccurate.
You said:"Imagine how brutal the Romans would have been if they'd possessed tanks and planes."
That's kinda the point of what I asked you. Rome was not a religious state. Only Cesar claimed to be a sort of humanistic God. So your analogy addresses what I ask...this is the man that you claim has more inherent goodness...he is destructive isn't he?
see 2
2
Jeffrey,
You said:"But interestingly, human society continues to refine itself, to progress, to create societies of greater freedom, of greater integration, greater diversity, greater acceptance, greater organization."
Are you kidding me??? There has never been more division nationalistically and even within America itself. You've got vision...like Stevie, but it is vision...
You said:"We no longer tolerate slavery."
Now, this is one of the worst statements ever made. You think that slavery doesn't exist today. Let me explain this to you...as long as there is debt, there is slavery. Why must you get up and punch that clock every day, or why must you produce and income? It's all because you're a slave to debt...Someone has something on and over you and controls your existence.
ooh the cast of characters has changed and the type of servitude has changed but it's still slavery...you owe or will owe so you go...you and I are slaves my friend, we only try to do it with greater dignity!
You said:"We no longer tolerate naked bigorty."
And you think that??? I guess the bigotry now does at least wear clothes...so you're right...it's all dressed up now.
You said:"And while we have (sadly) taken a slight detour on the torture front because of terrorism, the rest of the world is rightly shocked and appalled by our present lapse."
now place A with junction B...Why does the world expect different? It's because of the Christian values that have long permeated the country's open practices abroad. the country's human practices are products of religions effort and Christian intervention for the most part...certainly nor atheistic endeavors...This is another post but please take another look at it, you'll be surprised.
You said:"Our world has never been more peaceful, prosperous, free."
Not what I saw on CNN...
you said:"And ironically, the MOST peaceful, prosperous, giving, egalitarian nations in the world are the LEAST religious of all - those who have consiciously shunned the Divine Path."
PURE fantasy....what did Scandinavia give to Haiti??? U got those figures? Can you think of a time when a so called 'secular" country took the initiative and lead in a world issue? Name one please.
Now, when you go to bed tonight, unlock your doors and windows and disconnect your phone. Do that for a few weeks and then come back and talk about these "better angels"
@ Glenn,
Countless millions died in opposition to Religion where in the 20th Century?
If you are talking about World War I or II, you have clearly never taken a history class. World War I was a complicated breakdown of an alliance system and the destabilization of Central Europe caused by German unification and hegemony - not Religion. World War II was primarily a continuation of that same war. Neither was fought to advance or oppose Religion.
If you're referring to the purges in Stalinist Russia, again, nothing to do with Religion or opposition to Religion, merely Stalin's megalomania and distrust of his officer corps. If you're referring to the Maoist Revolution, AGAIN, distrust of military corps and economics, not religion. If you're referring to Vietnam, economics, not religion. Korea, same. Cold War, same. Iraq, same. Iraq, same.
If you want to argue that the Maoist or Stalinist purges were in Opposition To Religion merely because the perpetrator was not a religious and discount the actual motivating factors behind them, then you will have to accept the reverse. That since the genocides in Rwanda, Congo, were committed by people who adhere to Christianity, those were wars in favor of Religion.
I of course do not argue that. The Stalinist and Maoist purges were both about internal security and economic dominance. The wars and genocide in Africa are the long term results of colonialism and tribal warfare, not religion.
Indeed, one of the few overtly religious wars in the 20th Century has been waged by a small number of crazed Islamists and the casualties in that conflict have actually been quite small.
Harvey,
You claim that we can't see what you see. But many atheists have, and using evidence we rejected superstition.
I mean no disrespect... you have a kind of virus of the mind. You suffer from a delusion. I, and many that post here, came out of the same delusion. I can say 'I understand' what you are going through.
You claim that there is some invisible world where spirits fly around and interact with the natural world. There is zero evidence to support such beliefs, yet it somehow gives you comfort.
There are scientific reasons to explain this. Have you see the science series Through the Wormhole with Morgan Freeman? I recommend watching the first show entitled 'Is their a Creator'. Pay attention to the segment of the 'God Helmet'. I hope it helps you.
Zombody,
I have plenty of evidence in support of my position and I'm very versed on regularity and tenets of metaphysical naturalism and ,materialism which you undoubetly espouse. My faith is rooted in evidence as is every Christians. Not in philosophical metaphical naturalis which fails on almost evey hand in which there is higher meaning or purpose.
I feel as you feel for me, a good person deluded by this world flesh and materialism, and ultimately deceived by an enemy of the soul greater than yourself...
We're good and thanks for the interaction.
@Jeffrey
One caveat in regards to Stalin, Mao, other communist regimes... They did have it in for the religionists of their countries... The reason they tried to stamp out religion in their countries was because religions transcend borders and demand allegiances that supercede nationalistic goals.
They couldn't have any of that because they WERE the state (Stalin, Mao, et al). As you said though... These guys weren't doing what they were doing because they hated god, or worked for the Devil... They were, as you rightly stated, megalomaniacs and tyrants pure and simple.
@ Dist.
I don't have time to address all of your points, but will address them generally.
It truly makes me sad that you hate yourself and your humanity so much, that you cannot recognize all that we have accomplished.
To be sure, our world is far from perfect. I have no illusions that our world IS perfect. But our world is INFINITELY better than it was 1000 years ago, 2000 years ago, 5000 years ago.
Martin Luther King's statement is merely a case of mistaken attribution. He attributes the fact that the world is becoming more moral to God. The fact that the world is becoming more moral is not diminished simply because he misattributed the causal element.
I would like you to show me the last time you saw a public execution. Or a public disembowelling. Or a public torture exhibition. Or a public hanging. Or a public murder for sport. In the time when your ancient texts were inked, these things were entertainment. We've evolved past that. You would have to be blind not to see that.
The rates of murder, rape, and property crimes have never been lower. Especially compared to the levels that existed in pre-modern times.
That you compare chattel slavery to debt and punching a clock to work is simply sad. You cannot honestlly say that it is no different to be PROPERTY capable of being SOLD against your will and taken from your family to working. Is your job really that hateful?
Funny you should ask whether I have the figures regarding charitable giving, because I actually DO. The top ten most generous countries as a percentage proportion of GNI are Sweden (1.12) Norway (1.06), Luxemborg (1.01), Denmark (0.88), Netherlands (0.82), Belgium (0.55) Finland (0.54), Ireland (0.54), UK (0.52), Switzerland (0.47) Those countries represent some of the most secularized and Atheistic countries on the planet. While it is true that the US gives the most in absolute terms because its economy is dramatically larger, in terms of a percentage of wealth, the US gives a small (0.22). And the US is not actually a highly religious nation. Ironically, the recipients of this largesse are largely the MOST religious countries in the World. Funny how that works.
This even applies if you are talking about individual private donations by citizens.
We activelly seek to avoid civilian casualties in wars. We actually set up refugee camps to provide food and medical care for civilians and refugees for the citizens of our ENEMIES. We do this. Humans do this. Because we have learned. We have grown. We have evolved.
Cont.
Do we do it perfectly? Of course not.
I would ask the following:
Would you rape your neighbor's wife if there were no police?
Would you rob a bank if there were no police?
Would you murder your enemy if there were no police?
Obviously the answer is no. Nor would 95% of the population. You might claim that you would not do so becuse GOD prohibits it, but the answer for me is just as clearly NO despite the fact that I do not beleive there is any GOD to prohibit it. The fact is that there will ALWAYS be angry, desperate, hurt, damaged people who will do such things. This is why we have police. To protect the rest of society from such people, not to curb the evil urges of the rest. Such people will always exist. It is our duty to help them. Not because the Invisible Sky Wizard says so, but because we owe it to our fellow man to ensure that every life is as long, fruitful and prosperous as possible.
The fact that starvation exists is disheartening, but it should be noted that our civilization actually tries to mitigate the effects of famine and starvation CONSTANTLY. We do not do it perfectly, but we make the attempt. The anicents would have found such actions unthinkable.
While it is lamentable that personal bigotry still exists, it is not tolerated in public discourse. It is the kind of thing that costs people their jobs. Though you might view that as being freed from slavery...
The simple, undeniable fact is that by any conceivable metric, life is immeasurably better than in ancient times. You romanticize the times of your ancient scrolls, but fail to recognize the reality that the world they lived in was wretched beyond anything we can even fathom today. Where wretched, abject poverty, disease, starvation, illiteracy, was the norm for nearly the entire human population.
We have made the world a better place. We have made ourselves and our societies better. That you choose to misattribute the advances that humanity has fought so hard for is deeply saddening.
It has been a pleasure talking with you.
Damn Jeffrey, I just found your blog... you are a prolific writer bro. I have some reading to do because you write some big ass posts...
One word of advice. The more succinct it is the better but I'm no Shakespeare, nor an english major, etc...
Good stuff I've read so far though.
Keep it up.
Jeffrey,
It's been a pleasure with you too my friend, you're a gentleman and a scholar, no matter what Les and some of the others say about you-LOL...Kidding...
Thanks!
Harvey said,
"... Backing it up we see two common reasons that slaves were made:
1- Prisoner of War where the victors took the spoils and enslaved the people and
2- Enslavement for debt
3- Being inherited as a slave."
I guess accuracy in COUNTING is shuuned as being evil as well...
17 to 18, Harvey??? EVER???
There were 19 were hanged, 5 died in prison, and one was pressed to death with stones...
in Salem, Massachusetts.
In 1692.
Depending on who you might have asked (of which no one was either counting or keeping track, as they might have been seen as "sympathizers" and burned or hanged as well), thousands to millions of witches were executed by papal decree and other hysterical religious reasons.
Funny you should mention Haiti, Harv.
Two things are remarkable about Haiti, when viewed together (and this was true long before the earthquake):
Haiti is the poorest nation in the Western Hemisphere, and
Some 96% of Haitians claim Christianity (80% Roman Catholic, 16% Protestant) as their religion...
So much for Christian nations being wonderful places to live...
Oh, and by the way...
"...Can you think of a time when a so called 'secular" country took the initiative and lead in a world issue? Name one please."
The USA is a secular nation. See the Establishment Clause in the First Amendment.
@GearHedEd; ah, may the shoggoths rip out you lungs, you took the words right out of my mouth. However, you didn't mention the Witch-hunt craze that swept England in the mid-1600s, right after the English Civil War. Although I don't exactly remember, at least four hundred innocent people were hanged, drowned, and burned to death for witchcraft. One way to identify a witch was to examine her body for the "Mark of Satan"; needless to say, this provided witch-finders with the opportunity to gang-rape their victims(especially since the Mark could supposedly be found anywhere on the body, even the vagina or anus).
Apologists are starting to see the problems associated with taking their literal interpretation of the Bible and are employing ridiculously specific interpretive techniques to try to get out of problems.
What they don't realize is that you can't pick and choose what is literal and what is not based on nothing more than what suits your argument. But this is the apologist way with everything in the Bible.
Jewish scriptures don't make sense as literal prophecies? All of sudden, they are just prototypical of Jesus and prefigure him! What is that you say? Israel disobeyed God? That's ok, only certain properties of Israel prefigure Jesus!
And it gets increasingly ridiculous the more you back them into a corner. The more you corner them, the more specific and outrageous the arguments sound from an objective viewpoint.
so basically, harveys stance s that yes, god did endorse slavery, but it was a GOOD slavery for all invloved? wow.
Post a Comment