tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post3576359329855538369..comments2024-03-25T17:35:02.238-04:00Comments on Debunking Christianity: Ministry of a Healing Amputee and Another Where the Dead Come Back to LifeUnknownnoreply@blogger.comBlogger69125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-76307320367565426572010-04-23T21:47:31.289-04:002010-04-23T21:47:31.289-04:00I have a blog you might be interested in checking ...I have a blog you might be interested in checking out:<br />http://mobileintensiveprayerunit.blogspot.com<br /><br />I post stories of people healed miraculously. Most of the stories include testimonies of physicians and nurses. I have about a dozen testimonies of people raised from the dead after more than 30 minutes. Two of them after being dead for 3 days, one was already embalmed. <br /><br />You'll find a lot of incurable diseases have been healed. Everything from Lou Gehrig's disease, Parkinson's, MS, fibromyalgia and stage 4 cancer all healed and all testified to by doctors.<br /><br />Have a look?Prayingmedichttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07680037925025282596noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-13634417341619833322008-05-13T14:52:00.001-04:002008-05-13T14:52:00.001-04:00The post does not give the credit as far as David ...The post does not give the credit as far as David Hogan goes in sharing amputees being restored. <BR/>David has shared that one person had their legs from the knee down totally restored, and on that same conference shared how one person from the waist down had grown the full leg down by Christ. <BR/> <BR/>The post by a so called critic who is Christian is definitely critical. When it comes to hearing someone out, they should at least try to present it the way it is rather than twist things. The author Brian Karjala also appears to be out of touch with some of the common dealings of the Holy Ghost. If Brian Karjala has listened to DAvid for any length of time, then he would know that Mr. Hogan is one for constantly giving Jesus glory, and if there are boasts that appear prideful, then as Paul so put it, he had even more reason to be that way. When Christ works through you, you have reason to boast in Christ works!<BR/>RonnieUnknownhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17401850844338940098noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-42556400722993960212008-05-13T14:52:00.000-04:002008-05-13T14:52:00.000-04:00The post does not give the credit as far as David ...The post does not give the credit as far as David Hogan goes in sharing amputees being restored. <BR/>David has shared that one person had their legs from the knee down totally restored, and on that same conference shared how one person from the waist down had grown the full leg down by Christ. <BR/> <BR/>The post by a so called critic who is Christian is definitely critical. When it comes to hearing someone out, they should at least try to present it the way it is rather than twist things. The author Brian Karjala also appears to be out of touch with some of the common dealings of the Holy Ghost. If Brian Karjala has listened to DAvid for any length of time, then he would know that Mr. Hogan is one for constantly giving Jesus glory, and if there are boasts that appear prideful, then as Paul so put it, he had even more reason to be that way. When Christ works through you, you have reason to boast in Christ works!<BR/>RonnieUnknownhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17401850844338940098noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-55969869251330903432007-10-17T12:19:00.000-04:002007-10-17T12:19:00.000-04:00Shy and Jason:No, it is NOT true that "The NT was ...Shy and Jason:<BR/>No, it is NOT true that "The NT was first given only to the Jews and Gentiles living in Jerusalem and the surrounding areas. Then it spread to areas just outside of Israel such as Greece and Rome before slowly branching out from there." <BR/>Christianity -- in wondrously diverse forms -- had already spread to many areas before the need was felt to produce Gospels. Paul's letters predate the Gospels by ten years or so, and were written to individual Churches, many of which he had founded. (Check out where Galatia, Ephesus, Thessalonica, etc. are.)<BR/><BR/>Then people wanted to have written stories of who this 'Jesus' was, and many were written in different areas, including the three Synoptics that we 'kept.' Some churches used one, some another, etc. Thirty or so later, the theologically based John was written -- long after almost everyone who had actually witnessed the events was dead.<BR/>After a while the 'Church Fathers' and other writers began to argue as to which books were, in fact, authentic, and which were 'heretical.' (Meanwhile books were still being written in the names of the early Apostles. The latest book we have is II Peter, which dates from the middle of the Second Century.)<BR/><BR/>I would suggest, Jason, that you look into any good studies on the history of the Bible -- questia.com has many of them.<BR/><BR/>Shygetz has made my point, that the effect of the Bible has been to retard the ethical progress that has been made externally to the bible <I>over the past 500 years</I>. It is hard to judge whether the overall effect of the millenia before that was positive or negative because of the other factors involved, the Islamic battles, the fall of Rome.<BR/><BR/>The reason for the negative effect has been the Christian attitude towards the Bible -- and the difference between that attitude and the Jewish attitude is why I consider the OT a major improvement for its times.<BR/><BR/>No Jew would ever have said "Thje Bible says it; that settles it!" Rather the Bible is a text to be argued over, reinterpreted, authorities are tro be compared, with every student coming up with his own interpretation after weighing the arguments of the rabbis who went before. (I've pointed out that the "You have heard it said... But I say unto you" of the Sermon on the Mount is very much within the format of Talmudic arguing -- and the interpretations given by Jesus are not new and innovative, but very much along the line of the School of Hillel -- another reason why the supposed hostility of the Jews to him in the Bible -- if we have the essence of his teaching -- is so obviously apocryphal.)<BR/><BR/>It is not the Bible per se that has been so negative, but the attitude of Christians towards it, the bibliolatry -- which is why your constant refrain has missed my point so totally. Maybe -- it is at least arguable -- the Bible was an ethical advance for its time -- though the ethics of the Far East in some ways was superior, in others inferior. But eventually it became not an improvement but a dead weight, from the beginnings of the Enlightenment, and particularly over the last century, which has been -- despite the obvious backward steps -- overall the period of the most rapid ethical growth in the history of mankind.Prup (aka Jim Benton)https://www.blogger.com/profile/08376467128665482055noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-76660074319901825242007-10-17T10:54:00.000-04:002007-10-17T10:54:00.000-04:00The NT was first given only to the Jews and Gentil...<I>The NT was first given only to the Jews and Gentiles living in Jerusalem and the surrounding areas. Then it spread to areas just outside of Israel such as Greece and Rome before slowly branching out from there.</I><BR/><BR/>This is true; however, the religion spread fairly rapidly (over the course of a decade or two) and to a small number of people who were largely socially downtrodden (poor, women, underprivileged groups, etc.) The effects such a small number of uninfluential people would have on societal morality during the short time of the spread of Christianity would be very small. I would argue that Christian morality really took off as a societal driving force after the conversion of Constantine. Unfortunately for testing a hypothesis, this occurred throughout the Roman Empire simultaneously.<BR/><BR/><I>What I've been asking is why isn't there evidence of superior and inferior ethical systems in nations which received the Bible at different time periods? By definition, there must be differences if the Bible truly does affect an ethical system on the level you claim it does. </I><BR/><BR/>I think Prup was claiming that the Bible influenced the rate of change of a moral system. In order to test the claim, we would have to have two societies; in one, the Bible would be accepted at a much earlier time point by a portion of the population that had sufficient influence to drive society. In the other, the Bible would have to be introduced much later, if at all. In all other areas, the societies would have to be similar, and the rate of moral change would have to be followed over the time periods valid for this argument (i.e. centuries). Unfortunately, I don't think this case exists, so I don't think it is possible to test Prup's idea via historical observation. The closest we could come may be examing the morals of similar lands colonized by countries with differing levels of fundamentalism during the colonial period. Unfortunately, I know VERY little about the colonial period.Shygetzhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12587529149916263563noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-38556139720623584682007-10-16T00:21:00.000-04:002007-10-16T00:21:00.000-04:00Prup,All throughout this argument you've been atte...Prup,<BR/><BR/>All throughout this argument you've been attempting to cast a blanket statement that the "world" is a much worse place because of the Bible. The NT was first given only to the Jews and Gentiles living in Jerusalem and the surrounding areas. Then it spread to areas just outside of Israel such as Greece and Rome before slowly branching out from there. What I've been asking is why isn't there evidence of superior and inferior ethical systems in nations which received the Bible at different time periods? By definition, there <I>must</I> be differences if the Bible truly does affect an ethical system on the level you claim it does. This is the major flaw in your argument. The Far East, for example, must have ethically progressed much further then the Middle East given the length of time it took for the Bible to get that far. However there's no evidence to suggest this is the case. And that's just forgetting for a moment the logistal and analytical impossibility of measuring the status and progress of a global ethical system...<BR/><BR/>No, there's nothing suggesting the Bible 'retarded' an entire ethical system.<BR/><BR/>(I am constantly surprised though that you consider the OT a "substantial step forward" in ethics considering the horror atheists constantly express about God killing all those innocent people because they broke the law)Jasonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13029527163229375153noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-84748015943399079602007-10-15T14:46:00.000-04:002007-10-15T14:46:00.000-04:00Wow, jason, you are beyond belief. You made a fau...Wow, jason, you are beyond belief. You made a faulty deductive conclusion. I pointed out it was faulty. I provided a valid counterexample. You whined, complained, tried to change the subject, tried to obfuscate the matter, all to weasel out of admitting that you made a faulty logical conclusion and were caught.<BR/><BR/>This is not the behavior of a mature person seeking truth; this is the behavior of a petulant child who got his hand caught in the cookie jar. I'm really starting to think that you are not capable of mature discussion, but rather think of this as a game of "gotcha" where the object is to avoid admitting defeat for as long as possible.<BR/><BR/>You screwed up making you logical argument. Admit it and move on. You're making a fool of yourself.Shygetzhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12587529149916263563noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-12278626570598013582007-10-15T03:50:00.000-04:002007-10-15T03:50:00.000-04:00This has reached a state of high comedy or absolut...This has reached a state of high comedy or absolute idiocy on your point. I made a specific statement, that the world was a worse place <B><I>NOW</I></B> because of the inluence of the Bible in slowing and combatting the evolving moral sensibility of mankind. It has retarded the progress. <BR/><BR/>I MADE NO COMMENT -- ORIGINALLY -- THAT THE BIBLE REPRESENTED A STEP BACKWARDS.<BR/><BR/>When you argued that I had, I specifically stated that the Old Testament was a step forward -- though I implied that the New Testament, by ignoring some of the positive steps taken by the Old might have been a step backwards there. But I did not discuss or imply any sort of pre-Biblical 'ideal ethical state.' <BR/><BR/>The fact that you misread my original statement might have been a result of your poor comprehension or my poor writing. The fact that you continue to insist that I defend a statement I never made, do not believe in, despite my having explained this, may be the most absurd argument I've heard here.<BR/><BR/>You MIS-INTERPRETED MY STATEMENT!<BR/><BR/><I>My statement doesn't mean what you claim it does!</I><BR/><BR/>And your repeated insistence that your interpretation is correct proves you are a total IDIOT!Prup (aka Jim Benton)https://www.blogger.com/profile/08376467128665482055noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-50661541916262448352007-10-14T21:10:00.000-04:002007-10-14T21:10:00.000-04:00Prup,Your comment fortunately wasn’t ambiguous at ...Prup,<BR/><BR/>Your comment fortunately wasn’t ambiguous at all. As I replied shortly after your reply, I took your statement to mean you thought the world was a much worse place because of the Bible. It’s an absolute statement, one that doesn’t require any further explanation. I understood it perfectly.<BR/><BR/>As for the matter of your so-called real-world ‘evidence’, the only way the impact of the Bible on an ethical system can truly be measured is by comparing a world or civilization which didn’t have the Bible to one that has the Bible. If the civilization without the Bible maintains an ethical system of equal or less value to one that has the Bible, then your statement is wrong. If the system is better, the your statement is correct.<BR/><BR/>For example, the Bible didn’t arrive in the Far East until at least the 6th century. Evidence must exist showing that this part of the world was ethically “better” then other parts of the world. So where' the proof?<BR/><BR/>Shy,<BR/><BR/><I>“Agriculture altered the social structure of mankind, allowing the growth of population centers instead of nomadic bands and encouraging morality not based directly on familial ties.”</I><BR/><BR/>All you’re talking about is a change to a social structure. You’re not explaining why this change must result in a superior ethical system. Prove that the ethical system of 1st century BC nomads was inferior to the ethical system of 8th or 17th century AD citizens. <BR/><BR/>Sanitation, medicine, and other technologies increased leisure time and decreased the harshness of life, both of which lowered the cost of altruism and encouraged cooperation to complete larger and larger civic projects. The ancient Romans dabbled in sanitization and medicine but this didn’t make them ethically superior to the Babylonians. Honesty is still honesty, responsibility is still responsibility and respect is still respect. Developing a cure for cancer won’t suddenly make the world a more ethically ‘better’ place, it’ll simply make mankind more ethically responsible.<BR/><BR/><I>The counterexample based solely on the premise shows how your conclusion does not follow.</I><BR/><BR/>My analogy simply highlighted the fact that my theoretical non-atheist world in comparison to this world, is a much better place. Therefore, I can easily ‘prove’ it’s not the Bible that’s made the world a much worse place, it’s atheists as much as you can ‘prove’ the Bible made the world a much worse place.<BR/><BR/>If creating any kind of theoretical world and using this make-believe world as proof in an argument is allowed, then I’ve just demonstrated that the world is a much worse place because of atheists. It actually has nothing to do with the Bible at all. This is my evidentiary argument and counterexample. ☺<BR/><BR/>Any theoretical proof you can offer to prove your point, I can just as easily do the same.Jasonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13029527163229375153noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-34301589490542918692007-10-12T15:00:00.000-04:002007-10-12T15:00:00.000-04:00lol Yes but better compared to what, a theoretical...<I>lol Yes but better compared to what, a theoretical non-Bible world created by atheists?</I><BR/><BR/>Yes, jason, a theoretical non-Bible world. That was prup's position.<BR/><BR/><I>One might infer that? Really? It's funny because I’ve been saying the same thing over and over again for the past half dozen posts.</I><BR/><BR/>No, jason, you've been saying:<BR/><BR/>"So if “following the words of the writers of the Bible has made the world a much worse place”, then it logically follows that a world prior to the Bible must have been better off since following the words of the writers of the Bible has made the world a much worse place."<BR/><BR/>Your conclusion does not logically follow.<BR/><BR/><I>What a great laugh! You’re kidding, right? Since when does the ‘value’ of ethics have anything to do with man’s new found ability to farm canola oil or floss their teeth twice a day? </I><BR/><BR/>Agriculture altered the social structure of mankind, allowing the growth of population centers instead of nomadic bands and encouraging morality not based directly on familial ties. Sanitation, medicine, and other technologies increased leisure time and decreased the harshness of life, both of which lowered the cost of altruism and encouraged cooperation to complete larger and larger civic projects. Learn to think rather than just lash out, jason.<BR/><BR/><I>How on earth can you create an entirely theoretical world without the Bible and then claim it’s proof we’re worse off because of the Bible??</I><BR/><BR/>I did not; I proposed it as a <A HREF="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Counterexample" REL="nofollow">counterexample</A> to your logical conclusion. You stated that the conclusion "a world prior to the Bible must have been better off (than now)" based on the premise “following the words of the writers of the Bible has made the world a much worse place”. The counterexample based solely on the premise shows how your conclusion does not follow.<BR/><BR/><I>Anyhow, after much consideration, I thought it best to follow your lead. In order to prove your conclusion is incorrect, all I have to do is demonstrate one possible case in which your conclusion doesn’t follow the premises – get this, it doesn’t even have to be true, just possible.</I><BR/><BR/>When did I or prup ever argue that the conclusion "athiests must make the world a better place" logically followed from the premise “following the words of the writers of the Bible has made the world a much worse place”? I didn't, prup didn't, and you know it. In fact, I didn't see prup make any deductive arguments, only evidentiary ones. You, on the other hand, made a faulty deductive conclusion when you said:<BR/><BR/>"So if “following the words of the writers of the Bible has made the world a much worse place”, then it logically follows that a world prior to the Bible must have been better off since following the words of the writers of the Bible has made the world a much worse place."<BR/><BR/>See the phrase "then it logically follows"? That's an indicator for a deductive argument. In order to disprove it, I must show one and only one case in which the premise does not result in the conclusion. I did so.<BR/><BR/><I>Damn you all.</I><BR/><BR/>You're welcome.<BR/><BR/>Oh, I'm sorry, I thought you said "Thank you all." See, that's the typical response when someone patiently and politely corrects a mistake that you have persisted in making, and provides a detailed <A HREF="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Counterexample" REL="nofollow">counterexample</A> to your faulty logical conclusion. If this is how you typically responsd to those who attempt to educate and correct you, perhaps that explains why you continually make the same errors and rarely attempt to cure your ignorance.<BR/><BR/>Keep it up, jason, and I'll have to put you in time out.Shygetzhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12587529149916263563noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-64789075662032825252007-10-12T12:06:00.000-04:002007-10-12T12:06:00.000-04:00Jason:You have the Christian skill for taking a fe...Jason:<BR/>You have the Christian skill for taking a few sentences out of context and building a gigantic structure on them. Matthew would be proud.<BR/><BR/>The difference is that his out of context quotes came from people who were long dead. Isaiah wasn't going to yell at him for misconstruing him.<BR/><BR/>I, on the other hand, am still alive -- the last I looked.<BR/><BR/>You say 'The whole argument stems from the statement "following the words of the Bible has made the world a much worse place"'<BR/><BR/>This was the spur for your repeated use of the same paragraph ...<BR/><BR/>despite the fact that, as soon as you used it, I said the following in my comment of 2:55 AM Oct. 7th:<BR/>"I do see one ambiguous statement that could have confused you. That was "a much worse place."<BR/><BR/>I did not mean 'than it had been -- before the Bible.' The Old Testament was a major improvement over what had gone before -- and had the Christians built on those improvements, rather than abandoning them, it would have made the last 20 centuries much better."<BR/><BR/>You say that there has been no direct 'real-world' evidence. I would state that the following schema represents 'real world evidence'<BR/><BR/>A. The Bible holds forth a specific position.<BR/>B. Humanity's 'general consensus' evolves ethically beyond that position, and attempts to introduce this new understanding<BR/>C. Substantial number of Christians work against this new understanding and delay it because 'the Bible tells us' that the older position is sanctioned by God.<BR/>(with the eventual position being accepted and <BR/>D. Christians then explain how the new position was what the Bible said all along)<BR/><BR/>This schema has been played out many times:<BR/>in racial matters first an acceptance of racial slavery and the acceptance of the natural inequality of blacks based on the Biblical precept that blacks are decendants of -- oh, whichever of Noah's children it was, no time to check it.<BR/><BR/>Then an acceptance of segregation, again on a racial basis<BR/><BR/>Then a final attempt to draw the line at a condemnation of racially mixed marriages -- based, among other sources on the story of Phinehas.<BR/><BR/>On gender matters <BR/>The acceptance of a daughter as being the property of, and a marketable asset to, her father<BR/><BR/>Then an insistance that women were -- again -- naturally inferior and should not be placed in a position of authority over men<BR/><BR/>Then an insistance that the proper arrangement of a marriage is that the 'wife should be to the husband as the church is to god.'<BR/><BR/>Then you have the political support of monarchy and specifically divine right monarchy -- and in the Eastern Church even the ultimate of Caesaropapism.<BR/><BR/>Shall I go on?<BR/>(I hope not. In a court I'd be able to say to the judge 'Objection your honor, this question has already been asked and answered numerous times.)Prup (aka Jim Benton)https://www.blogger.com/profile/08376467128665482055noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-66091055681697909022007-10-12T10:44:00.000-04:002007-10-12T10:44:00.000-04:00Joseph, The whole argument stems from the statemen...Joseph, <BR/><BR/>The whole argument stems from the statement "following the words of the Bible has made the world a much worse place" and the criteria for placing a value on ethics. Where have these issues been addressed using real-life evidence?Jasonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13029527163229375153noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-75236399857885290822007-10-12T00:24:00.000-04:002007-10-12T00:24:00.000-04:00I guess that last line said it all Shygetz, you a...I guess that last line said it all Shygetz, you are dealing with an irrational fool who cannot track and argument from start to finish. Nor does he care to exert the mental energy to do so. He does like playing dodge ball, though. I think Solomon says it best: "Do not answer a fool according to his folly" (Prov. 26:4). Fool: "a harmlessly deranged person or one lacking in common powers of understanding" (Webster). Better off ignoring him because you'll get nowhere. <BR/><BR/>Are there any respectable, intellectually honest Christian debaters out there who will actually READ and LISTEN and respond accordingly? Richdurrant, drsimrak: you've been quiet lately. We miss you!Billhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07058424176773515878noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-78108902052084383542007-10-11T23:00:00.000-04:002007-10-11T23:00:00.000-04:00jason, you are still drawing an illogical conclusi...<I>jason, you are still drawing an illogical conclusion. “following the words of the writers of the Bible has made the world a much worse place” means that, had we not followed the words of the Bible, the world would now be a better place than it is now.</I><BR/><BR/>lol Yes but better compared to what, a theoretical non-Bible world created by atheists?<BR/><BR/><I>One might infer that the phrase also means that the world at any point and time since the Bible would have been better off had the Bible not been around...</I><BR/><BR/>One might infer that? Really? It's funny because I’ve been saying the same thing over and over again for the past half dozen posts. If the world is ‘much worse’ because of the Bible then logically, a world without the Bible must be ‘much better’. How is this not a logical conclusion?<BR/><BR/><I>Let me make an example for you…Now do you see how your conclusion does not follow?</I><BR/><BR/>What a great laugh! You’re kidding, right? Since when does the ‘value’ of ethics have anything to do with man’s new found ability to farm canola oil or floss their teeth twice a day? How on earth can you create an entirely theoretical world without the Bible and then claim it’s <I>proof</I> we’re worse off because of the Bible?? That’s ridiculous! In both scenarios you presented, you’re claiming the world is ethically better off today then it was in 107AD – <B>why</B>??? Did people lie and cheat more in 103AD? Were there more instances of elder abuse in 284BC? Was personal responsibility non-existent in 99BC? Your entire claim is based solely on <B>theoretical</B> “evidence” and you’re behaving as if it’s the truth. Incredible! Isn’t this what you criticize Christians for???? <BR/><BR/>Anyhow, after much consideration, I thought it best to follow your lead. In order to prove your conclusion is incorrect, all I have to do is demonstrate one possible case in which your conclusion doesn’t follow the premises – get this, it doesn’t even have to be true, just <I>possible</I>. <BR/><BR/>Now, the world at the time of the arrival of the Bible had a morality score of 934,948. Let’s say basic human progress improves the morality factor by 902 units per year. The cultural effect of the Bible has no effect on North American Indians or migrant workers but increases the morality factor of Jews by 400 units in 1969. However, with the influx of closet atheists coming out post-1981, the global morality score drops by 483,000 units.<BR/><BR/>Pre-Bible Score: 934,948<BR/>Current Score w/ Bible: 1.2 million’ish<BR/>Current Score w/Bible and w/o atheists: 1.7 million’ish<BR/><BR/>At any time post-Bible, the score would be higher then pre-Bible. However, at any time post-Bible, the score would have been higher had atheists never existed. It’s proof atheists are the stumbling block in the way of the world achieving a “truly good system”<BR/><BR/>Damn you all.Jasonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13029527163229375153noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-53109552441805627582007-10-11T15:16:00.000-04:002007-10-11T15:16:00.000-04:00Oh, I forgot to address this point:I’m also enquir...Oh, I forgot to address this point:<BR/><BR/><I>I’m also enquiring how one MEASURES the VALUE of an ethical system. What’s the criteria? It’s really not a difficult question. Without a reasonable and fair means to measure ethics, then the claim that the Bible prevents a ‘truly good ethical system’ is completely unfounded.</I><BR/><BR/>I would measure it against a humanistic utilitarian standard (greatest good for the greatest number), which I think is reasonable and fair means of measuring ethics in human relationships, albeit one that is damnably difficult to measure. You might object that this choice is subjective, but what of it? It is no more subjective than your choice to follow the teachings of 2000 year old writings for morality. I could as easily claim that humanism is a self-supporting objective moral system as you could claim the same for theology.Shygetzhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12587529149916263563noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-8935988540372673642007-10-11T15:01:00.000-04:002007-10-11T15:01:00.000-04:00jason, you are still drawing an illogical conclusi...jason, you are still drawing an illogical conclusion. <BR/><BR/><I>“following the words of the writers of the Bible has made the world a much worse place”</I> means that, had we not followed the words of the Bible, the world would now be a better place than it is now. One might infer that the phrase also means that the world at any point and time since the Bible would have been better off had the Bible not been around. I don't know if prup meant this inference or not, but either way, it does not follow that he is claiming that the world now is worse morally than the pre-Biblical world.<BR/><BR/>Let me make an example for you. Let's quantitate morality, as that is the only way to really say something is "more" or "less" moral. We will say that morality varies on a numerical scale, with 0 being a complete lack of morals. Now, in order to prove that your conclusion is incorrect, all I have to do is demonstrate one possible case in which the conclusion does not follow the premises; it doesn't have to be a true case, just a possible one. I shall do so now.<BR/><BR/>Let say that the world at the time of the arrival of the Bible (say, 107 C.E. just to keep the numbers easy) had a morality scale of 10. Now, let's say that basic human progress (improvements in education, health, agriculture, etc.) improves our morality factor at a rate of 2 units per year. However, the cultural effect of the Bible decreases our morality factor by 1 unit per year.<BR/><BR/>Pre-Bible morality score: 10<BR/>Current morality score with Bible: 1910<BR/>Current morality score without Bible: 3810<BR/><BR/>At any time post-Bible, the score would be higher than pre-Bible. However, at any time post-Bible, the score would have been <B>higher</B> had the Bible never been writted.<BR/><BR/>Now do you see how your conclusion does not follow?Shygetzhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12587529149916263563noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-72531358444819753392007-10-11T12:27:00.000-04:002007-10-11T12:27:00.000-04:00Prup + Shygetz,I’m not sure why you guys are so co...Prup + Shygetz,<BR/><BR/>I’m not sure why you guys are so confused. Prup, did you or did you not say <I>“My position is that following the words of the writers of the Bible…<B>has made the world a much worse place</B>”</I>?<BR/><BR/>My conclusion therefore is simply based on the <I>“My position is that following the words of the writers of the Bible…<B>has made the world a much worse place</B>”</I> statement. I’m surprised you keep missing the point considering I’ve been ‘obtusely parroting’ it for quite some time now.<BR/><BR/>So if <I>“following the words of the writers of the Bible <B>has made the world a much worse place</B>”</I>, then it logically follows that a world <B>prior</B> to the Bible must have been better off since following the words of the writers of the Bible has made the world a much worse place. <BR/><BR/>Worse compared to what, one might ask? Worse compared to a world which doesn’t follow the words of the writers of the Bible. Makes sense. So I’ll ask again: What evidence shows that prior to the 4th century AD, or even prior to Christ, the world was ‘better’? (and surely it must since prior to the Bible, the world wasn’t following the words of the Bible)<BR/><BR/>I’m also enquiring how one MEASURES the VALUE of an ethical system. What’s the criteria? It’s really not a difficult question. Without a reasonable and fair means to measure ethics, then the claim that the Bible prevents a ‘truly good ethical system’ is completely unfounded.Jasonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13029527163229375153noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-64299734815128025692007-10-11T09:40:00.000-04:002007-10-11T09:40:00.000-04:00jason, my quoted response was to your conclusion:B...jason, my quoted response was to your conclusion:<BR/><BR/><I>Based on the claim that the world is ethically worse off with the Bible, one must logically conclude that the pre-Biblical world was ethically superior to ours today.</I><BR/><BR/>Your characterization that I "missed the point" is wrong; the point is clear, and your conclusion is unfounded. Yet again, you refuse to admit error and hope that no one will call you on your obfuscation.<BR/><BR/>No dice. Quit misrepresenting my position. If you can't argue against it, admit your error and amend your argument rather than pretend your error never existed. The evidence is clearly in the comments, so you're not fooling anyone.Shygetzhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12587529149916263563noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-52133575509495826082007-10-10T13:27:00.000-04:002007-10-10T13:27:00.000-04:00This is getting ridiculous. Three times you have ...This is getting ridiculous. Three times you have asked me to justify a position. Each time I have repeated that this is neither the position I stated nor a logical conclusion from what I have stated. Shygetz has made the same points. Let's try one last time.<BR/><BR/>I did NOT say 'the world would have been a better place without the Bible.' (I even stated that the Old Testament at least -- as used by the Jews, not the Christian misunderstanding of it -- was a major ethical improvement.) I said that Christian bibliolatry, the idea that the Bible was not just an improvement over the previous moral codes but -- as the 'word of God' -- the final word on ethics has proven a handicap towards man's ever progressing moral sense.<BR/><BR/>I have also stated that Christians, once the consensus of opinion has changed against ideas in the Bible have reinterpreted it so that they could claim that the new ethical position was 'really' in it all the time.<BR/><BR/>The bible has been surpassed in several areas. <BR/>Its support of slavery is an obvious one. <BR/>Its support of a vicious and irrational sexual code -- this is one area where the OT was particularly guilty. <BR/>Its too-ready acceptance of war against the unbeliever. (I am not a total pacifist, but war should be a last resort in extreme circumstances.) <BR/>Its support of the notion of 'divine right monarchy.' (That one is particularly Christian.)<BR/>Its support of the subordination of women.<BR/>Its injection of Zoroastrian demonology and its teaching of man's inherent wickedness.<BR/>Some of these ideas certainly existed in pre-Biblical times, as did others that the Bible brought to an end -- which is why it was an improvement.<BR/><BR/>Again, it may have been ahead of its time, the problem is that it is not viewed as a book of and about its time but as a book that has relevance to all times, and that is how it has been a hindrance.<BR/><BR/>Now do you finally understand what I am saying? I am not asking if you agree with me, I'm sure you don't. But do you finally understand that what you ask me has no relelvance to the point I have been trying to make. (And, ironically but honestly, I can thank you. Your obtuse parroting of the same question has given me a chance to refine my statement so it is much clearer.)Prup (aka Jim Benton)https://www.blogger.com/profile/08376467128665482055noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-41812346007650313292007-10-10T12:37:00.000-04:002007-10-10T12:37:00.000-04:00Prup,You haven't dealt with these points which is ...Prup,<BR/><BR/>You haven't dealt with these points which is why I continue to ask.<BR/><BR/>1. If ethics can be altered in the absence of the Bible, and surely they must, then what historical evidence can be produced showing the Bible alone froze the development of this system (or at least evidence proving we’re ethically ‘behind’ where we should be)? What objective criteria are you using to measure the value of an ethical system? I say the world would be ethically worse in the absence of the Bible. Can I prove it? No. Does it matter? Apparently not.<BR/><BR/>2. Based on the claim that the world is ethically "worse off with the Bible", one must logically conclude that the pre-Biblical world was ethically superior to ours today. Assuming a date of 400AD for the compilation of what today is the Bible (OT & NT), this would mean that the world was better and civilizations more ethically pure prior to the 4th century AD. Since there’s nothing to suggest this was the case however I’d like to know how you justify your position.Jasonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13029527163229375153noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-62216940899525246742007-10-10T12:33:00.000-04:002007-10-10T12:33:00.000-04:00The reason why I didn't respond to Shyget's commen...The reason why I didn't respond to Shyget's comment is because he's missing the point. He said:<BR/><BR/><I>"That is only a valid conclusion if prup had said that bibliolatry and Christian ethics were the only stumbling blocks; otherwise, they could have been outweighed in pre-Biblical times by a large number of other smaller obstacles."</I><BR/><BR/>This unfortunately is wrong because we're not talking about stumbling blocks. The comment was made, quite clearly, that the world <B>is a worse place because of the Bible.</B> This is an absolute statement. I'm enquiring about this, not the stumbling blocks.Jasonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13029527163229375153noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-69917795608002934032007-10-10T03:32:00.000-04:002007-10-10T03:32:00.000-04:00Jason: Shygetz put it well enough that I will adop...Jason: Shygetz put it well enough that I will adopt his comment. I repeat what I had already said before, your 'logical conclusion' about what I said does not follow from what I said. I rarely yell, "Strawman" but in this case your argument <I>is</I> a 'dictionary definition' of the fallacy.<BR/><BR/>As for 'froze' vs. 'retard' perhaps retard is better, because as much as Christianity tried to freeze the ethical system, man did manage to advance, and Christianity tried to gallop ahead of the pack, claiming 'oh, that's what we've <I>really</I> been saying all along.'Prup (aka Jim Benton)https://www.blogger.com/profile/08376467128665482055noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-88736788067180215682007-10-10T00:57:00.000-04:002007-10-10T00:57:00.000-04:00"Seriously, do you not read? The comment directly ..."Seriously, do you not read? The comment directly above yours points out how your conclusion does not follow the premises."<BR/><BR/>A favorite tactic of folks like Jason is to deal with the points they think they can tackle and ignore the ones they clearly can't, as though they were never spoken to begin with. Classic case of selective hearing (or reading, in this case). He's done the same to me elsewhere. It's fun to watch 'em squirm, though.Billhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07058424176773515878noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-64142565831469592722007-10-09T23:52:00.000-04:002007-10-09T23:52:00.000-04:00Shygetz,Thanks for your input but I'm interested i...Shygetz,<BR/><BR/>Thanks for your input but I'm interested in hearing from Prup. <BR/><BR/>(You say "retard", he says "froze". Just another example of that multi-headed atheist hydra. You guys need to get your stories straight. lol )Jasonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13029527163229375153noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-3168362403206679862007-10-09T11:27:00.000-04:002007-10-09T11:27:00.000-04:00Finally, back to a point of mine which I don’t bel...<I>Finally, back to a point of mine which I don’t believe was answered. Based on the claim that the world is ethically worse off with the Bible, one must logically conclude that the pre-Biblical world was ethically superior to ours today.</I><BR/><BR/>Seriously, do you not read? The comment directly above yours points out how your conclusion does not follow the premises. There are factors other than the existence of the Bible that can (and do) contribute to the overall morals and ethics of a society, and these factors could outweigh the stultifying effects of Biblical adherance.<BR/><BR/><I>I’m also not sure how anyone can positively claim the Bible ‘froze’ the development of ethics.</I><BR/><BR/>I wouldn't say "froze", but I would certainly say "retard". And it does it by nature. The Bible contains an ethical system that existed either >4000 years ago or ~2000 years ago (depending on the book of the Bible), perhaps older. And it presents this ethical system as THE ONLY ethical system to follow. Now, if a large number of people in a society believe this to be true, then the development of ethics will be curtailled because most of the people of the society will KNOW they have the correct and ONLY correct answer (the drawback of absolute certainty). The Enlightenment only occurred because of religious freedom; should I believe that the increase in moral thought/philosophy and the increase in apostasy during the Enlightenment were mere coincidences?Shygetzhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12587529149916263563noreply@blogger.com