Continuation of Christianity debate.

[jay_a2j]

Jay, it's nice to see that you implicitly agree with my "God created everything so it's God's fault" argument.

No, I was agreeing to your quote about backglass.

[vtmarik]

Jay, it's nice to see that you implicitly agree with my "God created everything so it's God's fault" argument.

No, I was agreeing to your quote about backglass.

Well, you didn't try to refute it, so I must have made a good point.

[heavycola]

So, by your argument, tickling a frog is just a valid of punishment for a rapist, as say, prison time. We're talking the punishment for sin. It's not arbitrary.

It IS arbitrary. The whole shebang. Sin - don't cut your hair, don't worship anyone else, don't covet other mens' oxen - WTF? How do any of these have a bearing on human morality? Sin is just a set of weird rules. Not much to do with morality (althought they do converge in parts). So god gets upset with all the sin in his world... and nails his son to a cross.
Your comparison with western justice systems is irrelevant. Rapists are locked up to protect society and, nominally at least, to give them a chance to rehabilitate. It is a practical, sensible response. Whereas if i created a universe, and gave my creations free will, and then got upset because they weren't behaving as i asked them to, my first reaction probably wouldn't be... 'i know, i'll impregnate a virgin and then nail the resulting child to a cross. That will solve everything!'
And ESPECIALLY not if i was omnipotent. Step back and think about it.

Actually, if God doesn't exist, I haven't got a single reason to believe in anything abstract, including love, ethics, morality, philosophy, beauty, art, whatever. It's irrelevent, because it's simply time and chance.

This is saddening. Like Backglass said, you are saying that an atheist has no reason to find anything beautiful, has no concept of love, of morality... which i would take offense to if it wasn't so absurd. Is the dalai lama immoral? How do aborigines make such gorgeous art without xianity to guide them? Does Bertrand Russell's 'philosopher' status have to be taken back becasue he didn't believe in god?
Fact is, I celebrate all of those things every day. Don't need a god to lean on.
What I was partly trying to do by cherrypicking the violent bits from god's perfect word was to demonstrate that we don't take our morality from the bible anymore. We don't need it.

[Bertros Bertros]

In your case, the government has dictated that the Catholic church do something it believes is wrong, which smacks of arrogance and intolerance.

But, before we descend into a drawn out discussion on homosexuality, what "Modern ethics" do you propose we determine right or wrong by? Are you a deontologist? virtue ethicist? utilitarian? Who decides?

In this case the government has dictated that the catholic church are not allowed to discriminate against homosexuals who they see as unfit to be parents, because the majority of the UK population, including many of the pious, believe that it is unacceptable to do so.

Turn it on its head a moment and imagine I run an adoption agency, but because I disagree with Catholicism I am refusing the right to seek adoption to any Catholics. Perhaps the government would come along and say "Hey you can't do that, just cause you don't like Catholicism doesn't mean Catholics are unfit to adopt". Would the government still be arrogant and intolerant then?

As for determining right or wrong. Consensus. I am not a moral philosopher, but in some ways I believe in absolute morals, more often I have consequentialist leanings, what I am is human. Together we determine what is acceptable behaviour in our society. We don't need to fit some pigeon holed philosophy to have a framework for our morals. I don't believe the lack of a God suddenly sends us all spinning into immoral and unethical behaviour. In the cycnical words of Mencken (and I don't necessarily agree with them entirely) "People say we need religion when what they really mean is we need police".

It's difficult here for us to see eye to eye as, unless you are pretending for the sake of argument, you genuinly don't believe there would be any morals (or for that matter whatever else you deem to be beyond the capability of humans on their own) without God. I think you are selling us all short. I guess this is where my faith lies. In humanity.

[Kokunai]

I am going to say this last thing.

Everything that happens in the world is God's will and leads to a higher purpose. In the end it will all be sorted out. The Gospel is a testament of the love God has for us all. Just because he loves you does not mean he has to save you if you choose against him. The contradictions you think you see are only because of a flaw in your thinking. You fail to see the things that are so plainly laid out for you. Read the bible if you want to. If you have any questions directly about that PM me. You refuse to deal directly with my answers to your questions and instead just rephrase your questions.

I do truly hope what has been said here opens you hearts to God and eventually your minds. But it is the heart the Lord is after. None of these arguments do any good in the grand scheme as faith does not come from the mind but is refined in the heart then left to the mind.

You want to argue plain and simple. Your not going to change our minds nor are we going to change yours that is not the goal for us. It seems to be your goal but will always fail.

I would like to point out how against our nature it is to think of ourselves as less than good. You have to realise that this is the first step to accepting Christ realising you in fact are evil and nothing you do can make you not so. When you are in your darkest hour (hopefully it happens before this) you will cry out to Him and he will come because of the love He has for you no matter how bad your actions have been. If He can forgive those who crucified Him, He will forgive you.

It is the Beauty of His love we hope to express to you. You fail to recognize it, right now. Someday you may, and it is my hope that you do. As a Christian I try to chase the heart of God, I am not perfect and fall victim to the world a lot more than I wish to. But, that is just it even when I fail horribly God will always accept me back into his arms. He is perfect and you fail to see it because your mind won't let you. Open your heart to hear the call of God in your life and the world will open up to you. You will see everything in a different way. I just wish that once in your life you feel the touch of God in your life, that would be enough to turn you from being hardheaded and resolute, to being a child of God and never turning to look at who you once were.

We don't know each other, probably never will but know this, all of you who posted anything in here will be continuously in my thoughts and prayers. That those of you who have not had your eyes opened would have them opened. And, those of you who are "running the race" will continue to do so steadfastly and strongly and that when you fall you are lifted by His grace to run freshly towards the prize that is the Lord our Father and to his open arms.

[MR. Nate]

God created good, and man created evil through free will.
Sin is man's fault, not God's.
Have I encapsulated the concept correctly?
Who gave us free will? God.
Who created man? God.
If you trace anything it all goes back to God as the root.

When you say "created evil" that makes it sound as if evil is the equal, opposite of good. It's not, it's simply a perversion of the charechter of God, which is good. So, no, God did not Create good, He IS good. Man did not create evil, but he participated in actions which were not as perfect as the morality of God.

Yes, God created Free will, and yes God created man. God wanted man to love him, and part of love is choice. You must be able to freely decide who to love. So, God creates man, gives him everything he could ever need. Man decided that wasn't enough, so he took more, something that wasn't his. There is the perversion of God's morality. The rest, well you mostly know.

thelewis: I respect and appreciate your restraint.

Whereas if i created a universe, and gave my creations free will, and then got upset because they weren't behaving as i asked them to, my first reaction probably wouldn't be... 'i know, i'll impregnate a virgin and then nail the resulting child to a cross. That will solve everything!'
And ESPECIALLY not if i was omnipotent.

if YOU were omnipotent, I have a feeling I would be in more than a little trouble
You act as if sin wasn't a big deal, and God really just wanted to kill Jesus for the fun of it. You're underestimating sin. Sin is wholly repugnant to God, he cannot accept us as long as were covered in it. But the amount of sin is tremendous, there's nothing that any one of us can ever do to remove it. The price we should pay is eternity in hell. For that large of a problem, there must be an equally large solution, and the only solution big enough was the punishment of an infinite being. It hurt God tremendously to allow Christ to die, but it was the only sacrifice big enough to cover the sin of the world.

Turn it on its head a moment and imagine I run an adoption agency, but because I disagree with Catholicism I am refusing the right to seek adoption to any Catholics. Perhaps the government would come along and say "Hey you can't do that, just cause you don't like Catholicism doesn't mean Catholics are unfit to adopt". Would the government still be arrogant and intolerant then?

Absolutly. it's YOUR adoption agency. The government has no business telling you what you can and can't do in business and service as it relates to your private convictions. If it's a government agency, then the government has to view all citizens who are not convicted criminals as equal, they can't favor religion or non-religion, or sexual or gender orientation. But if it's private, you've got the right to do help who you want, and not help who you don't want. Which is why I think this is seperate from a religious / sexual orientation issue. It's more about government interference. By, the way, I expect someone with a name that includes a referance to demolishing all governments to agree with me here.

As for determining right or wrong. Consensus. I am not a moral philosopher, but in some ways I believe in absolute morals, more often I have consequentialist leanings, what I am is human. Together we determine what is acceptable behaviour in our society.

The makes me very nervous. How many people do you need to have consensus? 51% of the population? What about Hitler's Germany. He had concensus, so technically what he did was right. This nation was vehemently opposed to MLK Jr. when he began fighting for human rights. The same with Ghandi in India when he tried to abolish the cast system. If "consensus" rules, then MLK and Ghandi are immoral.

If you believe in absolute morals, where do those come from, who is the arbiter, how do you know they're right?

[heavycola]

EDIT this is addressed to Kokunai:

No, i haven't ignored your answers, just pointed out the flaws in your arguments. But this is, i agree, pointless, because:

1) you appear to have stopped questioning your beliefs (something I hope I never do)
2) your responses can all can be summarised thus: god is beyond reason (god is unreasonable ), or it says so in the bible.

Can't argue with that, really. Not with someone whose mind is completely shut off to other possibilities. The reason I post in these threads is to try and understand, through argument and opinion, why people believe what they do and what my own beliefs are. If anything had been posted to make me think, 'maybe this is all true', then that would be great. I am open to that. But all I read are homilies, baseless arguments and unreasonable, unprovable assertions based on an old book. It is not just about wanting to argue.

I can argue with your labelling me as evil - that is exactly the kind of brainwashing that has caused so much misery to 'believers' and their enemies over the years. My morality has nothing to do with arbitrary 5,000 year-old rules; nevertheless it exists. And your arrogance in presuming that it doesn't would, again, be offensive if it wasn't so laughable and so harmless.

Pray for me if you want though, i get a kick out of that.

[heavycola]

Nate:

For that large of a problem, there must be an equally large solution, and the only solution big enough was the punishment of an infinite being. It hurt God tremendously to allow Christ to die, but it was the only sacrifice big enough to cover the sin of the world.

OK re: your first equation: these are human, logical rules. Equal and opposite reaction, etc. And here is the crux of the problem - god is anthropomorphised when necessary, and deified when that approach is needed, too. Why does an omnipotent being have to do anything? And why in such human terms? And what about the majority of humans on the planet at the time who had no idea who Yahweh was, let alone jesus? I see what you are saying, but it is still, to me, an arbitrary and human way of solving this "problem" (of which the vast majority of humans were not even aware existed).

I CAN understand the crucifixion from an anthropological point of view: animal and human sacrifices have been a part of religion for tens of thousands of years. THAT makes sense to me.




And i think you might be being a little disingenuous about morality...
moral philosophy has drawn on religions of all colours and shapes, or simply hasn't. We are not going to sort the morality issue out here; suffice it to say that I and my predominantly atheist/ humanist friends have no problems leading good, moral lives without a god or a bible. - as I am sure you are a good, moral person with your god and your bible.

[Backglass]

I am going to say this last thing.

Good!

Everything that happens in the world is God's will and leads to a higher purpose. In the end it will all be sorted out.

Nice cop out. This is jay's "You'll see in the END!" rebuttal...although he usually has a smug "winky" at the end.

The Gospel is a testament of the love God has for us all.

It is just a book. Granted, a very old one.

The contradictions you think you see are only because of a flaw in your thinking. You fail to see the things that are so plainly laid out for you.

The magical beings you believe in are only because of a flaw in your thinking, your upbringing or some psychological weakness. You fail to see that you believe in fairy tales.

I do truly hope what has been said here opens you hearts to God and eventually your min

I truly hope that one day you wake from your fog and realize that magical beings dont exist...and start living for NOW instead of for some fantasy afterlife.

Your not going to change our minds nor are we going to change yours that is not the goal for us.

I agree that I will not change your mind. Perhaps you will change on your own as many do over time. Perhaps you will live a fantasy until you die. I disagree that your goal is not to "change minds". That is my biggest gripe with religions in general. Do what you want, but quit pushing it on me.

You have to realise that this is the first step to accepting Christ realising you in fact are evil and nothing you do can make you not so.

Sorry, I'm not evil. Maybe you are though, I dont know.

When you are in your darkest hour (hopefully it happens before this) you will cry out to Him and he will come...

And when you are in your darkest hour, and you cry out, and nothing happens...perhaps you will realize that magical beings and creatures don't exist, and that you must rely on yourself instead of "falling back into the arms" of a fantasy.

[Bertros Bertros]

Turn it on its head a moment and imagine I run an adoption agency, but because I disagree with Catholicism I am refusing the right to seek adoption to any Catholics. Perhaps the government would come along and say "Hey you can't do that, just cause you don't like Catholicism doesn't mean Catholics are unfit to adopt". Would the government still be arrogant and intolerant then?

Absolutly. it's YOUR adoption agency. The government has no business telling you what you can and can't do in business and service as it relates to your private convictions. If it's a government agency, then the government has to view all citizens who are not convicted criminals as equal, they can't favor religion or non-religion, or sexual or gender orientation. But if it's private, you've got the right to do help who you want, and not help who you don't want. Which is why I think this is seperate from a religious / sexual orientation issue. It's more about government interference. By, the way, I expect someone with a name that includes a referance to demolishing all governments to agree with me here.

As for determining right or wrong. Consensus. I am not a moral philosopher, but in some ways I believe in absolute morals, more often I have consequentialist leanings, what I am is human. Together we determine what is acceptable behaviour in our society.

The makes me very nervous. How many people do you need to have consensus? 51% of the population? What about Hitler's Germany. He had concensus, so technically what he did was right. This nation was vehemently opposed to MLK Jr. when he began fighting for human rights. The same with Ghandi in India when he tried to abolish the cast system. If "consensus" rules, then MLK and Ghandi are immoral.

If you believe in absolute morals, where do those come from, who is the arbiter, how do you know they're right?

My word so you are actually preaching prejudice and discrimination, Nate? Anti-Semitism for example is OK to you as long as its nothing to do with the government? That makes me very nervous.

Edit: I also think your being disingenious, I've called it obtuse in the past, same difference. We are the arbiters, morals come from us. You think they come from God and that without God there is no reason to be good. I believe they come from humanity and that we all have the capacity to be good with or without God.

[2dimes]

Jay, it's nice to see that you implicitly agree with my "God created everything so it's God's fault" argument.

No, I was agreeing to your quote about backglass.

Well, you didn't try to refute it, so I must have made a good point.

I blame your parents for how you turn out good or bad. It's not like people can be an individual, you're basically a clone of your parents.

I have no proof they bread to make you, or that they had anything to do with teaching you anything. I am also much to lazy to do the research to find out.

I'm going to use my faith to believe it though. Also it's trendy now days.

Murderers, rapists and criminals of all sorts should not be held responsible because it's due to their child hood not being perfect.

It's the parents that should go to prison. Guys like Jeff Dahlmer are just as much the victims as the people they commited their crimes against. I heard his dad was strict and might have spanked him.

I also don't believe there is any such thing as a starving person in the world. Their mom would never let them go hungry. Sure I've heard of these so called poor people from third world countries but no one has shown me one.

The ones on television commercials don't count, obviously they are hired by christians and dressed up. Actors, playing the role of poor starving children to help the "christians" milk me for my money. Lets face the facts if there was really starving people and you wanted to feed them you wouldn't waste any money making a commercial to bring in more money unless you wanted that money for luxuries.

[heavycola]

2Dimes you are disingenuous sir.

There is a direct correlation between poverty and crime. Does that make poor parents evil? Is anyone ever going to suggest otherwise?

[2dimes]

Absolutely, if there was any such thing as poor people they would be evil.

Infact they still are, because they are not actually poor but actors hired by christians, so they are liars which is evil right there.

[MeDeFe]

Now we just need PGizzle and this thread could die happily and go to thread heaven.

[heavycola]

Thread heaven doesn't exist. I am surprised at you.

[MeDeFe]

Nickname for page 2 and below?

[vtmarik]

Nate, you do make a point, evil isn't the opposite of good. Evil is to good as hate is to love, a twisted form of the same thing.

The opposite of good, is fear.

I've heard from various Christian sources (books, pundits, etc.) that we are supposed to fear the wrath of God.

If we are supposed to fear God, how can we ever love Him?
One does not fear spiders and love them at the same time, in fact our very nature forces us to hate the things we fear.

I put this question to you:
By God giving us a choice to love Him, then making us afraid of the consequences of not loving Him, is He shooting himself in the foot?

[2dimes]

I agree that the oposite of love is fear.

I do think there is different types of fear. I will steal a concept I heard stated by someone smarter than me.

I might love the sun but I should fear it at the same time. Going to the beach and hanging out in the sunshine could be my favorite thing, yet I should be carefull not to just go out there and get a raging sunburn.

Unless your a "christian" then obviously you deserved to burn, you should have prayed and gave money to your church before you went outside! Duh.

[MR. Nate]

Why does an omnipotent being have to do anything? And why in such human terms? And what about the majority of humans on the planet at the time who had no idea who Yahweh was, let alone jesus?

He doesn't have to do anything, He could have allowed us to burn in hell. In regards to the "humanness" of the terms, what if it is actually "godlike" terms, that he placed intuitive knowledge of into our concisness? Wouldn't that make it, as far as we can see, purely human? As for those who never heard, you're underestimating the collective nature of the human race. We as a race have rejected God, not simply those of us who know Him. There were non-isrealite worshipers of Yahweh, (Melchizedek & Jethro are named in Genesis) Just because the Bible records one particular group through whom the Messiah was to come does not mean that no one else knew.

moral philosophy has drawn on religions of all colours and shapes, or simply hasn't. We are not going to sort the morality issue out here; suffice it to say that I and my predominantly atheist/ humanist friends have no problems leading good, moral lives without a god or a bible.

Edit: I also think your being disingenious, I've called it obtuse in the past, same difference. We are the arbiters, morals come from us. You think they come from God and that without God there is no reason to be good. I believe they come from humanity and that we all have the capacity to be good with or without God.

I'm not saying that any individual can not lead a predominantly moral life. What I'm arguing for is that human morality shifts with culture, and things that are, or were considered "wrong" in various cultures are now "right," and things that are or were "right" are "wrong" So to rely on humanity to arbitrate what is right or wrong means we'll never know. If you truly believe that we are the arbiters of right and wrong, technically, if you can convince 51% of the globe, you're good.

My word so you are actually preaching prejudice and discrimination, Nate? Anti-Semitism for example is OK to you as long as its nothing to do with the government? That makes me very nervous.

Morally, prejudice and discrimination are reprehensable. But for the government to dictate how you can or cannot think or act in private affairs is almost as reprehensable. If you are a muslim, should should the government force you to allow an orthodox jew to use your privatly owned mosque? The government claims to be promoting "tolerance" but the one thing that they will not tolerate is anyone who does not agree with their definition of tolerance. It has stopped bing "you must live peacably with one another" it's "You must all like one another, and are not allowed to think that what anyone else is doing is wrong"

Now we just need PGizzle and this thread could die happily and go to thread heaven.

He has already tried . . . and failed. I will now procede to argue for the incorrigability of threads on religion

Thread heaven doesn't exist. I am surprised at you.

Perhaps not, but I'm fairly certain that thread hell is nearly at capacity!

The opposite of good, is fear.
I've heard from various Christian sources (books, pundits, etc.) that we are supposed to fear the wrath of God.
If we are supposed to fear God, how can we ever love Him?
One does not fear spiders and love them at the same time, in fact our very nature forces us to hate the things we fear.
I put this question to you:
By God giving us a choice to love Him, then making us afraid of the consequences of not loving Him, is He shooting himself in the foot?

This is a good question. I don't agree that fear is the opposite of good, and I don't think that we have to hate what we fear. I would argue that fear is an important part of love. Let me use an analogy. I'm going to assume that everyone here has a healthy relationship with their father, although that is probably not accurate. When you were 10, say, you did something wrong. You knew your dad was going to find out, you knew you were going to get into trouble. Not relishing the punishment, you were afraid. Of your dad, who you love dearly, and who you know loves you, and who you know would die for you if he had to. But you were still afraid.

The "fear of God" that you hear talked about generally is a good understanding of how Holy and Perfect He is, and the realization that nothing we can do can ever meet that standard. The question of if God is or isn't damaging his own case if he makes us afraid of the consequenses of not loving him seems

[2dimes]

When you were 10, say, you did something wrong. You knew your dad was going to find out, you knew you were going to get into trouble. Not relishing the punishment, you were afraid. Of your dad, who you love dearly, and who you know loves you, and who you know would die for you if he had to. But you were still afraid.

Later if he spanked you, you would become evil exactly like him and try to make little kids that you raped and killed in your freezer into zombies.

It's unfortunate but that's just how evolution mixed with genetics works. I think science will find a cure eventually, though I fear not in our life time.

[heavycola]

He could have allowed us to burn in hell.

No, he could have just not had hell exist at all. And my dad is never going to throw me into a lake of fire for eternity if i stop loving him, even if he could.


And how can i reject something I don't know? And how is it justice to punish someone with an eternity of pain for a crime they didn't even know existed? Where are the biblical stories in the australian aboriginal or polynesian islanders' mythologies? Completely different creation myths in each culture - and arguably the aborigines have lived in greater harmony with nature than any other culture before or since. Their gods live in the rocks and the earth and the trees, and they respect and live very successfully through those beliefs. But off to hell they go, according to you, becasue they have failed a god who evolved with an obscure tribe halfway round the world tens of thousands of years later.
Yahweh was an Israelite god, just like Baal was the canaanite god or Marduk the babylonian god. One has survived (culturally i mean). That's all.

YES morality changes. Back in jesus' time it was OK to stone a woman to death for adultery. Jesus didnt; wade in and say 'dont; stone people, it's barbaric and wrong!' - instead he just pointed out their hypocrisy. I am glad morals change with time - we are becoming a more moral society, no thanks to the bible.

[MR. Nate]

Not having a place to punish rebels is an affront to justice. And if you would have lived your entire life to spite your dad, I'm sure he would have allowed you to rot in jail as a consequence of your actions.

As I said earlier, I think your underestimating the sort of communal nature of the rejection of God. Whether you believe Adam was a man or a metaphor, he was clearly the representative of the entire human race, and his rejection of God became the default that every person begins with. In a similar way, Christ took the punsishment for sin onto himself as a represntative of the entire human race.

Wow, you're so right. We would be so much better off is William Wilberforce and Martin Luther King Jr. had been athiests.

[Guiscard]

Wow, you're so right. We would be so much better off is William Wilberforce and Martin Luther King Jr. had been athiests.

Theres a huge difference between acknowledging the social good that religion can bring us and accepting that there actually IS a God.

There are many socioglogical and psychological theories which explain religion as a social reflex present to make society 'run' better. I'm not going to bring those into the debate now, but I will say that I can see the benefits of religion (and also the bad points) - thats not enough for belief I'm afraid.

[2dimes]

YES morality changes. Back in jesus' time it was OK to stone a woman to death for adultery.

In some of the better countries it still is.

I am glad morals change with time - we are becoming a more moral society, no thanks to the bible.

I agree those countries with the high standard of morals that carry on the great practises of keeping women and foriegners in their place are not diluted by new testament thought.

Mainly because a bunch of those meddling "christians" and their like minded buddies didn't help make laws there. Starting with the magna carta.

You should go burn that rag Heavy, it's in your country.

[heavycola]

I had to post these:

'Christianity has a built-in defense system; anything that questions a belief, no matter how logical the argument, is the work of Satan by the very fact that it makes you question a belief. It is a very interesting defense mechanism and the only way to get by it, and believe me I was raised Southern Baptist, is to take heroic doses of mushrooms, sit in a field, and just go, "Show me."'
- Bill Hicks

RIP


"It seems to me that the most spurious of all the great religions is Christianity. Its biblical miracles are childish, pre-scientific myths. Its theology has been taken right out of the caldrons of blood sacrifice and appeasement. For God so loved the world that he allowed the crucifixion of his only son to appease his own wrath, and then he denied eternal life to billions of human souls who refused to accept the gory myth."
- Paul Blanshard (former minister), Personal and Confidential



And this is what I was after:
"After the missionary explained the Bible's superior civilized plan of salvation to several natives, one of them stood and said, "Like you, we love our gods and seek to love one another. What we do not understand is why your god tried to pin down sin by using His son as a voodoo doll."
Anon