They DID Believe the World was Flat
Chain Breaker
was a globe.
I think they didn't. Here is just ONE reason why.
The OT references to the Sabbath of the decalogue prove that they
thought the world was flat. If they didn't think that it was flat; if
they thought it was globular, explain why they didn't bother giving
instructions so people all over the world would know when it was the
seventh day. I'll tell you why they didn't. Because they had no clue
that the world was globular. They thought that ALL the world was dark
at the same time or light at the same time. Please explain this
scientific oversight on the part of the "inspired" writers. Please
don't try and tell me they thought the Sabbath was just meant for
them. They thought it was an eternal, moral commandment even to be
kept in the new earth. (Which, of course, would also be flat). See
Isaiah 66.
Scott
up of 2 hydrogen and one oxygen molecules? These things have nothing
to do with the gospel. Prophets can have their own personal opinions
and views, even if they are wrong.
Regards,
Scott
Dave Oldridge
@nwrdny01.gnilink.net:
> I have read in this newsgroup that the bible writers knew the world
> was a globe.
Depends which writers you're talking about. The writers and redactors of
the Torah were probably imbued from childhood with Babylonian cosmology
that taught a flat, circular earth with a dome (the firmament) over it.
But Job, although about ancient characters shows every sign of being a 2nd
Century BC product and does talk about God hanging the earth on nothing.
This would be the cosmology of Eratosthenes.
--
Dave Oldridge
ICQ 1800667
Paradoxically, most real events are highly improbable.
BHZellner
> thought it was globular, explain why they didn't
> bother giving instructions so people all over the
> world would know when it was the seventh day.
Well, the sphericity of the earth seems to have been
generally known only from about 600 BC.
But what's your problem here? Wherever you are
on the earth, there *is* a seventh day. They hardly
had to worry about an international date line.
Ben
Bob Crowley
They probably did believe the earth was flat. So what? Otherwise
highly educated people thought man would never fly, or go faster than
sound, or fly to the moon, or any number of other things.
One of the traps we Christians fall into is to try to use the Bible as
a science text. I have some sympathy for Creation Science, but any
proof has to be demonstrated here and now. Arguing over the
scientific understanding of ancient people doesn't prove anything
either way. Most ancient cultures probably thought the earth was
flat, and at any one time the majority of the people follow the status
quo in both social beliefs and moral behaviour, regardless of who or
what they are, or in what age they live.
Bob Crowley
John Sparks
news:BjYZa.1678$UB4....@nwrdny01.gnilink.net...
> I have read in this newsgroup that the bible writers knew the world
> was a globe.
> I think they didn't. Here is just ONE reason why.
> The OT references to the Sabbath of the decalogue prove that they
> thought the world was flat. If they didn't think that it was flat; if
> they thought it was globular, explain why they didn't bother giving
> instructions so people all over the world would know when it was the
> seventh day.
Huh? I am not quite sure what your point is. No matter where one was on the
globe, why wouldn't they be able to know when the sabath day was? Couldn't
they count? Wouldn't they have a calendar? Don't the Jews of today know when
the sabath is? How does telling the Hebrews to keep the sabath on the
seventh day and leaving at that does not prove the world was thought flat.
The implicit idea would be that people would be able to tell when the
seventh day was, no matter where they were, since they could count, and see
the sun where ever they were.
---
Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.507 / Virus Database: 304 - Release Date: 8/4/2003
dave
> I have read in this newsgroup that the bible writers knew the world
I suppose you are right, I would imagine that the people of the OT
thought of the world as flat. The Bible does call it the "circle of
the earth", and that may be a reasonable description of looking at it.
The reasoning is a little silly. First off, the nature of inspired
writing is that it is inspired by God. It is not necessary that the
writer himself be fully aware of all the implications of what he
writes. When the passage was written that God sits enthroned above the
circle of the earth, it is possible that the writer was unaware of the
implications. Even if he had been given a picture in his mind from
space, he may have thought only that it was circular, but nonetheless
flat. However, as we look back on it, we can see that the description
from God is correct. Hence inspired.
And I believe they really did think the Sabbath was just for them. And
I don't really see the problem of the 'globularity' (is that a word?)
of the earth being so difficult here. Why would you think it would
need to be explained in greater detail anyways? It seems to work fine
as it is for Jews all over the world. I don't see this as a scientific
oversight. I believe the Sabbath starts at sundown Friday whether it
is in New Zealand, Israel or Argentina.
When the sun goes down on Friday night, the Sabbath starts in the
respective time zone. I don't believe it is tied to Jerusalem time and
needs detailed instructions for different time zones.
dave
Knocky
>I have read in this newsgroup that the bible writers knew the world
>was a globe.
>I think they didn't.
You are srobalbly correct. The Bible 9most of it) written almost 3000 years
ago. Western man hwever knew the world was a not flat since 500 B.C. at least.
Chain Breaker
asked a question that is at the heart of the matter. (CB)
> > If they didn't think that it was flat; if they
> > thought it was globular, explain why they didn't
> > bother giving instructions so people all over the
> > world would know when it was the seventh day. (CB)
> Well, the sphericity of the earth seems to have been
> generally known only from about 600 BC. (Ben)
> But what's your problem here? Wherever you are
> on the earth, there *is* a seventh day. They hardly
> had to worry about an international date line. (Ben)
Ex 20:8-11. The problem is: Was that law for all people at that time?
It says it is in remembrance of creation. Did your God create just
Jews or all mankind? Were the other people living on earth, at the
time, important to God? Did he want them to know him as the creator,
and rest on that day and remember him, or was it just the Jews?
So the problem is, they DID need an International Date Line. According
to the bible, only one certain 24 hour period was blessed. Any seventh
day wouldn't do. Unless man can bless a day that God didn't bless.
The problem is, they had to get it right. But, they couldn't get it
right, coz they had no details. And they had no details coz they had
no knowledge. They had no knowledge coz it wasn't God but man that
made up the commandments. Not unless God didn't know the earth was a
globe. See my problem?
This law of the Sabbath was supposed to be written by the finger of
God in stone tablets on top of Mount Sinai. Do you believe that, Ben?
You see, we can sound all enlightened saying "the bible writers were
dumb asses but they still delivered the word of God", but I figure
that if they screwed up on something they told us God wrote with his
own finger....hmmmmm.
(CB)
BHZellner
> period was blessed. Any seventh day wouldn't do.
Is this really a problem? I live six or eight hours off
the Palestinian time-zone, but I haven't noticed
anyone around here worrying about it.
> This law of the Sabbath was supposed to be written
> by the finger of God in stone tablets on top of
> Mount Sinai.
How do you know He didn't? Were you there?
> Do you believe that, Ben?
What significance would you attach to my beliefs about
it, one way or the other?
Ben
BUSHBADEE
IN the pictures from the moon you can plainly see that the earth is a flat
disk.
Bushbadee
Flat Earth Society President.
.
.
I DO NOT FOLLOW MANY OF THESE NEWS GROUPS
To answere me address mail to
Bush...@aol.com
Chain Breaker
> > period was blessed. Any seventh day wouldn't do.
>
> Is this really a problem?
Not for me. I was told in another NG not to attempt to disprove the
bible with obscure annoying details like this and that I should stick
to the traditional arguments like the apparent psychopathic nature of
the biblical god. I think they are right, but because you asked, I
will just try to explain my point once more and leave it there. Here
goes: The nature of the sabbath commandment is such that if it were a
world wide ordinance, there were insufficient details given to help
people in other lands know when the seventh day was. I figure there
were insufficient details given because the commandments were man-made
and man did not have any knowledge of the problems that this
commandment, relating to a specific period of time, would cause on a
spherical world. If it were flat they would have envisaged no
problems. They envisaged no problems! Sorry I brought this up really.
> > This law of the Sabbath was supposed to be written
> > by the finger of God in stone tablets on top of
> > Mount Sinai.
>
> How do you know He didn't? Were you there?
No, but if I were I wouldn't have been allowed to set foot on the
mountain, anyway. I just find it a really primitive belief that god
came down and wrote with his own finger on two tablets of stone, and I
was wondering if you felt any need to believe such an apparently silly
thing.
> What significance would you attach to my beliefs about
> it, one way or the other?
The significance is that there appears to be ignorance associated with
the ten commandments. As well as the ambiguity of the sabbath
commandment, it also appears to condone slavery. These points seem to
reflect the cultural ignorance of the people of that time rather than
a god. I also wonder why another commandment says thou shalt not covet
thy neighbour's wife. Why not wife or husband? This seems to reflect
the cultural sexist attitude of the time. So you see, to my way of
thinking, god didn't write them, and if god didn't write them, they
were written by liars who said god wrote them. See the significance?
P.S. It might have been a good opportunity for god to give an
additional couple of commandments, like: Thou shalt not have slaves
and Thou shalt not esteem one gender above another. Just a thought.
BHZellner
> wrote with his own finger on two tablets of stone,
> such an apparently silly thing.
I don't care if a belief is categorized as "primitive"
or "silly." I only care if it is TRUE or not.
Ben
Denis Giron
> The nature of the sabbath commandment is such that if it were a
> world wide ordinance, there were insufficient details given to help
> people in other lands know when the seventh day was. I figure there
> were insufficient details given because the commandments were man-made
> and man did not have any knowledge of the problems that this
> commandment, relating to a specific period of time, would cause on a
> spherical world. If it were flat they would have envisaged no
> problems.
First of all, even on a flat earth (depending on that flat earth's
size) there would be different time zones. It could simultaneously be
noon on the furthest most Western part while it's almost sunset at the
furthest most eastern part.
Second, both Jewish and Christian theology holds that there are
exceptions of the Sabbath, and in the story about Jesus declaring
himself "Lord of the Sabbath" in the New Testaments we see that even
in the theology of the time it was acknowledged that there is room for
debate on the sabbath. From a Christian view point, this could be
understood as follows: God, when laying down this law, knew that the
number of potential scenarios that would make the sabbath difficult or
impossible would fill up many volumes of books if all of them were
catalogued, thus He simply gave a simple general rule, at let those
who are familiar with scripture figure out when exceptions are
possible (like the issue of healing on the sabbath). If you were a Jew
celebrating the sabbath in Alaska in June (think of the popular
Orthodox Jewish joke about how such and such play, book, or movie "was
like shabbos in Alaska in June - it never ended..."), you may either
work under a different concept of 'seventh day' (maybe you work on
Israeli time, or no longer base it on the sun, et cetera), or you
could go on to do some work, like harvesting food, and find solace in
the same story that Jesus found solace in as per the story recorded in
Matthew 12 and Luke 6.
Knocky
Anybody who watched a ship dsappear over the horizon would KNOW the earth is
not flat. That was scientific knowlege at the time of hamerburi.
Didymus
The Bible is full of scientific inaccuracies. Christians have known that
since, well, Galileo, and only the most fanatical and/or ignorant dispute
it. (Some of the finest scientists are Jesuits. They say it glorifies God to
study his creation. If there were a god, they'd be right on the money.) But
the lack of scientific accuracy in the Bible proves nothing about whether or
not it was divinely inspired. Christians say it was not God's purpose to
present man with a scientific treatise, but with the keys to his Heavenly
Kingdom. To accomplish that, it wasn't necessary to challenge the "common
knowledge" of the day about the natural world.
Yours is a poor argument, Chain Breaker. And it's irrelevant. Take it from
an atheist.
Didymus
Chain Breaker
> What a hilariously silly debate!.....
> the lack of scientific accuracy in the Bible proves nothing about whether or
> not it was divinely inspired. Christians say it was not God's purpose to
> present man with a scientific treatise, but with the keys to his Heavenly
> Kingdom. To accomplish that, it wasn't necessary to challenge the "common
> knowledge" of the day about the natural world.
> Yours is a poor argument, Chain Breaker. And it's irrelevant. Take it from
> an atheist.
> Didymus
Didymus, I agree that *many* Christians view the bible as purely a
soteriological vessel. I also agree that the lack of scientific
knowledge in some parts of the bible does not necessarily prove it was
not divinely inspired.
But, when that lack of scientific knowledge is specifically connected
with something that the bible claims god wrote with his own finger,
the debate may not be as silly as you think.
This sort of opposition to the Christian religion is obscure, I know,
and I have been told by others it is a wrong approach. However, I risk
it because in my view, the ten commandment law as presented by the
bible is at the very heart and soul of the Judaeo-Christian religion.
For this reason I cannot easily excuse any apparent scientific or for
that matter any sort of ignorance, in relation to the so called
god-written decalogue.
May I ask you a personal question? If then, as Christians say, god is
merely using the bible to present man with the keys to his heavenly
kingdom, and the bible can be excused its faults, at least its
scientific ones, why do you, personally, reject the invitation? Nice
to talk to you.(CB)
Chain Breaker
heart of the matter. The claim that god wrote on two tablets of stone
with his own finger is really the issue here. On that basis you would
expect NO scientific ignorance, NO acceptance of slavery and NO
sexism, all of which are implicit in the decalogue.
"How can you say, 'We are wise,
for we have the law of the LORD',
when actually the lying pen of the scribes
has handled it falsely?" Jer 8:8 NIV
(CB)
Denis Giron
> Denis, that is a rationalistic answer that doesn't really get to the
> heart of the matter. The claim that god wrote on two tablets of stone
> with his own finger is really the issue here. On that basis you would
> expect NO scientific ignorance, NO acceptance of slavery and NO
> sexism, all of which are implicit in the decalogue.
Let's separate the issue of scientific ignorance from the issue of
slavery and sexism. With regard to scientific ignorance, you have
surely not demonstrated any with regard to the issue of the Sabbath
(maybe there is scientific ignorance exhibited elsewhere in the Bible,
but surely not here). The rule does not presuppose a flat earth in any
way (though you're free to try and again explain why you think it
does). The language is actually sufficiently vague such that there is
wiggle room with regard to exact time frames. Furthermore, from a
Christian standpoint, proper exegesis of the law of the Sabbath can be
found in the words of Jesus (and it actually parallels some of the
conclusions of the Rabbis in the Talmud): that there are exceptions,
that the Sabbath (like ultimately all of God's law) was made for man,
not the other way around.
Now, with regard to the issue of acceptance of slavery and sexism, in
a purely logical sense, your argument has fallen flat. If we assume
God is the source of the Bible, and assume the Bible promotes sexism
and slavery, there is nothing logically inconsistent about those two
assumptions. Maybe one or both of those assumptions are wrong, but
they surely do not contradict one another (id est, it is at least
possible that both are true). Thus your assertion that if a text was
written by God it would have "NO acceptance of slavery and NO sexism"
is wholly unfounded. It essentially boils down to an appeal to emotion
and an appeal to your own subjective Western 20th century concept of
morality.
Didymus
> If then, as Christians say, god is
> merely using the bible to present man with the keys to his heavenly
> kingdom, and the bible can be excused its faults, at least its
> scientific ones, why do you, personally, reject the invitation?
Big questions require big answers, but I'll try to be brief. For starters,
I've been unable to resolve these troubling contradictions and
inconsistencies in the Christian concept of the deity:
-- A just and merciful god who nonetheless permits horrific evil to thrive
on the dubious grounds of avoiding interference with man's "free will"; a
god who has repeatedly failed to intervene when evil darkens the earth,
e.g., the Holocaust, but who answers trivial prayers and engages in
crowd-pleasing circus stunts like walking on water and exorcising demons
from pigs. (Any miracle or answered prayer is a divine intervention, and
thus a supernatural intrusion upon man's "free will." Despite that, the
notion of "free will" comes in mighty handy when Christians attempt to
explain away the existence of evil in the presence of a benevolent and
omnipotent deity. Christianity's god seems perfectly happy to mess about
with relative trivia, but if there's Big Evil loose upon the world, it's
strictly hands off.)
-- An omniscient god with complete and perfect knowledge of and control over
an indeterminate - and thus unknowable - future, i.e., a future that is at
least partially determined by man's exercise of his free will. (Isn't there
a paradox here? How free can it be if its working are known in advance? See
the "Why Jesus is the only Way to Salvation-" thread.)
-- A god who made creatures so stupid as to deliberately enter a state of
sinfulness and rebellion, thus losing the certainty of eternal salvation.
(Knowing in advance what would surely transpire, wouldn't God have made
smarter creatures? Or would the possession of greater intelligence have
encroached upon our "free will"?)
-- A god who holds each of us individually accountable for our acts, but who
condemned the entire human race to a state of sinfulness because a distant
(and utterly preposterous) pair of ancestors gave in to temptation.
--A god who has created a race of creatures for the express purposes of
believing that he exists, obeying his hard-to-ascertain dictates and
worshipping him. (What's the need here? Why would an omnipotent, omniscient,
omnibenevolent being insist on such sycophancy and obedience? Why would he
create such purpose-built toys, knowing in advance exactly what they would
do?)
-- An ethical and benevolent god who nonetheless chose an exceptionally
bloody human sacrifice as his method for mankind's redemption.
-- A just and merciful god who nonetheless rewards blind faith and punishes
skepticism, making our eternal salvation contingent upon our acceptance of
weak hearsay testimony, all of which consists of literary works produced by
fallible human beings who lived 2000 and more years ago.
-- A god whose very nature consists of logical contradictions contrived to
explain scriptural inconsistencies, i.e., three persons in one god; a fully
human and fully divine Jesus.
There you have it - performed completely without the aid of science!
There's more, of course, but that should do for now.
Didymus
Chain Breaker
you can wiggle about how it's kept but I don't see any wiggle room at
all in regard to when it's kept. In fact the man stoned for gathering
sticks on the sabbath wasn't given any wiggle room at all even in
regard to how it's kept. Was the same god in charge back then?
Re the issues of slavery and sexism in the decalogue. You can't be
saying what I think you're saying, surely. I must have it wrong. Do I
understand you as saying it is nothing more than a subjective Western
20th century concept of morality that would causes me to doubt that
god was the author of the decalogue because it implies the acceptance
of slavery and sexist attitudes? (CB)
Chain Breaker
some comments to make and spent about 1 1/2 hours typing them but lost
the lot when I went to preview the message! Stupid son of a ..... I
HATE THAT!
I will definitely get back to you, but now I'm too tired and angry
with this stupid system. c ya CB.
PS Who knows maybe what I wrote will somehow still be somewhere in
cyberspace and come back to me or go where it was meant to go. Sort of
like a kind of life-after-death for data.
zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz
Denis Giron
> Denis, that is a rationalistic answer that doesn't really get to the
> heart of the matter. The claim that god wrote on two tablets of stone
> with his own finger is really the issue here. On that basis you would
> expect NO scientific ignorance, NO acceptance of slavery and NO
> sexism, all of which are implicit in the decalogue.
Let's separate the issue of scientific ignorance from the issue of
slavery and sexism. With regard to scientific ignorance, you have
surely not demonstrated any with regard to the issue of the Sabbath
(maybe there is scientific ignorance exhibited elsewhere in the Bible,
but surely not here). The rule does not presuppose a flat earth in any
way (though you're free to try and again explain why you think it
does). The language is actually sufficiently vague such that there is
wiggle room with regard to exact time frames. Furthermore, from a
Christian standpoint, proper exegesis of the law of the Sabbath can be
found in the words of Jesus (and it actually parallels some of the
conclusions of the Rabbis in the Talmud): that there are exceptions,
that the Sabbath (like ultimately all of God's law) was made for man,
not the other way around.
Now, with regard to the issue of acceptance of slavery and sexism, in
a purely logical sense, your argument has fallen flat. If we assume
God is the source of the Bible, and assume the Bible promotes sexism
and slavery, there is nothing logically inconsistent about those two
assumptions. Maybe one or both of those assumptions are wrong, but
they surely do not contradict one another (id est, it is at least
possible that both are true). Thus your assertion that if a text was
written by God it would have "NO acceptance of slavery and NO sexism"
is wholly unfounded. It essentially boils down to an appeal to emotion
and an appeal to your own subjective Western 20th century concept of
morality.
Didymus
news:U7d5b.20462$NC2....@nwrdny01.gnilink.net...
> If then, as Christians say, god is
> merely using the bible to present man with the keys to his heavenly
> kingdom, and the bible can be excused its faults, at least its
> scientific ones, why do you, personally, reject the invitation?
Big questions require big answers, but I'll try to be brief. For starters,
Chain Breaker
differ.
The problem I have with using the sort of arguments you listed (and
I'm not saying that I don't use them) is that Christians generally are
aware of all those philosophical problems but believe anyway. They
argue that it is simply the limitations of human understanding which
prevents us from seeing the big picture. One day, they say, all will
be revealed! So I guess I can agree that the scientific objections to
the bible don't stop them, but neither do the philosophical issues!
Christians have spent two thousand years building an eloborate belief
system of theological rhetoric and apologetics to ward off every
philosophical issue you can throw at them. You and I might not find
their arguments satisfactory but THEY do, and it allows them to
continue believing what they WANT to believe. As long as they believe
that Jesus loves them, died for them, and promises them eternal life
they will never see the god of the bible as an ogre.
What did it for me was the ever growing recognition of the human
underpinnings of the bible. The OT at first, then, shock horror, the
NT. It slowly dawned on me that mankind really does not possess one
thread of undeniable evidence that god, any god, has given us even one
lousy syllable of divine revelation. The conclusion became inescapable
to me that all things religious have had their origins at the seat of
our intellectual understanding - the brain inside our heads! We made
it up! The lack of any real hard evidence of the divine inspiration of
the NT, combined, on the other hand, with evidence of embellishment,
interpolation and outright fraudulence is what convinced me that the
Christian religion is just another religion. If there is a god he sure
as hell aint saying much.
That is the reason I tend to focus on obvious fraudulent issues such
as the decalogue. This especially, because it was meant to be written
by the finger of god. Well, was it or not? Get my drift? If it wasn't,
it is just more proof of the dishonest nature of the writings of those
claiming to be messengers of divine revelation.
Jeremiah as much as admits this outright:
How can you say, "We are wise,
for we have the law of the LORD,"
Chain Breaker
Chain Breaker
Denis Giron
> Denis, that is a rationalistic answer that doesn't really get to the
> heart of the matter. The claim that god wrote on two tablets of stone
> with his own finger is really the issue here. On that basis you would
> expect NO scientific ignorance, NO acceptance of slavery and NO
> sexism, all of which are implicit in the decalogue.
Let's separate the issue of scientific ignorance from the issue of
slavery and sexism. With regard to scientific ignorance, you have
surely not demonstrated any with regard to the issue of the Sabbath
(maybe there is scientific ignorance exhibited elsewhere in the Bible,
but surely not here). The rule does not presuppose a flat earth in any
way (though you're free to try and again explain why you think it
does). The language is actually sufficiently vague such that there is
wiggle room with regard to exact time frames. Furthermore, from a
Christian standpoint, proper exegesis of the law of the Sabbath can be
found in the words of Jesus (and it actually parallels some of the
conclusions of the Rabbis in the Talmud): that there are exceptions,
that the Sabbath (like ultimately all of God's law) was made for man,
not the other way around.
Now, with regard to the issue of acceptance of slavery and sexism, in
a purely logical sense, your argument has fallen flat. If we assume
God is the source of the Bible, and assume the Bible promotes sexism
and slavery, there is nothing logically inconsistent about those two
assumptions. Maybe one or both of those assumptions are wrong, but
they surely do not contradict one another (id est, it is at least
possible that both are true). Thus your assertion that if a text was
written by God it would have "NO acceptance of slavery and NO sexism"
is wholly unfounded. It essentially boils down to an appeal to emotion
and an appeal to your own subjective Western 20th century concept of
morality.
Denis Giron
> Denis, not sure where you get your wiggle room notions from. Perhaps
> you can wiggle about how it's kept but I don't see any wiggle room at
> all in regard to when it's kept. In fact the man stoned for gathering
> sticks on the sabbath wasn't given any wiggle room at all even in
> regard to how it's kept. Was the same god in charge back then?
The stoning of the man is not inconsistent with a round earth.
Obviously he was required to hold to the time zone of the area under
pain of death. The sabbath begins when the sun goes down, and the sun
went down in that area, thus the sabbath had begun in that area. This
seems like a very sensible way of treating the sabbath (even within
the context of Draconian punishments for those who break the sabbath).
> Re the issues of slavery and sexism in the decalogue. You can't be
> saying what I think you're saying, surely. I must have it wrong. Do I
> understand you as saying it is nothing more than a subjective Western
> 20th century concept of morality that would causes me to doubt that
> god was the author of the decalogue because it implies the acceptance
> of slavery and sexist attitudes?
What I was stating was that *IF* the Bible promotes sexism and
slavery, that does not logically imply that the Bible is not the word
of God. Your argument seemed to be that the Bible promotes sexism and
slavery, therefore it is not from God. While your antecedent premise
may be true, the ultimate conclusion is not implied by it in the
least. Hence your argument is fallacious in light of certain hidden
assumptions and logical leaps that ultimately boil down to an appeal
to emotion and your own subjective sense of morality.
Note that there is nothing inconsistent about these two propositions:
(1) God is the author of text X.
(2) Text X encourages (or at least tolerates) a number
of practices considered deplorable by Denis Giron,
Mr. "Chain Breaker," or proponents of the Western
moral outlook in general.
The "deplorable" practices of the second proposition could be
anything: slavery, captial punishment, animal abuse (suppose text X
has a verse that reads: "The Lord thy God commands that you put a
kitten in a blender every Wednesday), et cetera. Ultimately we must
ask: who or what is the source of morality? God, or some guy posting
to usenet under the nomme-de-web "Chain Breaker"? Maybe God is not the
source of morality (maybe there is no God), but that seems to only
further establish the subjective nature of morality. Either way, moral
arguments (i.e. appeals to some sense of right and wrong) are
insufficient for proving that a given text is not the word of God.
Chain Breaker
Didymus
> So I guess I can agree that the scientific objections to
> the bible don't stop them, but neither do the philosophical issues!
When you're dealing with believers, faith trumps reason and evidence every
time.
> ...mankind really does not possess one
> thread of undeniable evidence that god, any god, has given us even one
> lousy syllable of divine revelation.
I'd substitute "plausible" for "undeniable." Anything can be denied.
> That is the reason I tend to focus on obvious fraudulent issues such
> as the decalogue. This especially, because it was meant to be written
> by the finger of god. Well, was it or not? Get my drift? If it wasn't,
> it is just more proof of the dishonest nature of the writings of those
> claiming to be messengers of divine revelation.
I think it's more persuasive to point out fundamental contradictions than it
is to argue about evidence. Only the most credulous fundamentalist thinks
there is much evidentiary basis for Christian beliefs; on the other hand,
most intelligent Christians agree that there is only the shakiest historical
support - archeological, epigraphic, etc. - for the biblical accounts. They
always fall back onto faith - "the evidence for things unseeen." So when
you try to argue the evidence question, you're not likely to get anywhere.
But since most non-fundamentalists accept the validity of reason, it's
possible get a pretty good discussion going by calling into question the
rationality of certain mutually exclusive beliefs. A good example is the
recent discussion on free will. You can find passages in the Bible that
support it (God reacting with dismay or surprise to man's actions) and
others that say that God plans everything and knows the future in every
detail. Christians want it both ways, of course, and therein lies the
contradiction.
But your basic point is well-taken: the Bible, and all the hermenuetics that
supposedly explain it, were authored by human beings. While "divine
inspiration" has been imputed to these works, that status has been bestowed
by all-too-human church leaders and theologicans. That imprimateur had
little to do with historical proof, and everything to do with conformance
with existing doctrines. (Even the most devout Christian would be hard
pressed to demonstrate that historical accuracy or the certainty of divine
authorship were considerations when the Christian canon was accepted in the
third century. Conformance with existing doctrines seemed to be the sole
criterion, and woe to him who dared to demur.)
Didymus
Didymus
news:pSR6b.4989$KX6...@nwrdny03.gnilink.net...
> nothin...@hotmail.com (Chain Breaker) wrote in message
news:<cNS5b.22649$zL5....@nwrdny02.gnilink.net>...
> arguments (i.e. appeals to some sense of right and wrong) are
> insufficient for proving that a given text is not the word of God.
Those who insist that there is one set of moral standards for God, and
another for man, are engaging in the fallacy known as Special Pleading.
In its most succinct form, it reads like this: "Humans must follow the
rules, but God's motives and acts are a mystery. God is just, merciful etc
by definition, so WHATEVER he does MUST BE just and merciful etc." Kind of
begs the question, doesn't it? Because of that pervasive tautology, terms
like "goodness" and "justice" and "mercy" and "benevolent" lose their
meaning when they're applied to God. He's still merciful, etc. even if he
sets up a human sacrifice where his own son suffers a bloody, excruciating
and humiliating death.
No matter how cruel and horrific his acts, God gets a free pass because....
he's God, by golly! He, like the ancient kings, can do no evil, purely by
virtue of his pre-eminence. From the biblical perspective, what matters is
not the the sin itself, but the STATUS of the sinner. It's a class thing,
carried to its ultimate conclusion.
Very tribal stuff, when you get to the heart of it. As with most aspects of
the Bible, it's rooted in anthropology rather than theology.
By the way, what DO you consider sufficient when "proving" that a given text
is or isn't the Word of God?
Didymus
Chain Breaker
Chain Breaker
you can wiggle about how it's kept but I don't see any wiggle room at
all in regard to when it's kept. In fact the man stoned for gathering
sticks on the sabbath wasn't given any wiggle room at all even in
regard to how it's kept. Was the same god in charge back then?
Re the issues of slavery and sexism in the decalogue. You can't be
saying what I think you're saying, surely. I must have it wrong. Do I
understand you as saying it is nothing more than a subjective Western
20th century concept of morality that would causes me to doubt that
god was the author of the decalogue because it implies the acceptance
of slavery and sexist attitudes? (CB)
Chain Breaker
Denis Giron
> Denis, that is a rationalistic answer that doesn't really get to the
> heart of the matter. The claim that god wrote on two tablets of stone
> with his own finger is really the issue here. On that basis you would
> expect NO scientific ignorance, NO acceptance of slavery and NO
> sexism, all of which are implicit in the decalogue.
Let's separate the issue of scientific ignorance from the issue of
slavery and sexism. With regard to scientific ignorance, you have
surely not demonstrated any with regard to the issue of the Sabbath
(maybe there is scientific ignorance exhibited elsewhere in the Bible,
but surely not here). The rule does not presuppose a flat earth in any
way (though you're free to try and again explain why you think it
does). The language is actually sufficiently vague such that there is
wiggle room with regard to exact time frames. Furthermore, from a
Christian standpoint, proper exegesis of the law of the Sabbath can be
found in the words of Jesus (and it actually parallels some of the
conclusions of the Rabbis in the Talmud): that there are exceptions,
that the Sabbath (like ultimately all of God's law) was made for man,
not the other way around.
Now, with regard to the issue of acceptance of slavery and sexism, in
a purely logical sense, your argument has fallen flat. If we assume
God is the source of the Bible, and assume the Bible promotes sexism
and slavery, there is nothing logically inconsistent about those two
assumptions. Maybe one or both of those assumptions are wrong, but
they surely do not contradict one another (id est, it is at least
possible that both are true). Thus your assertion that if a text was
written by God it would have "NO acceptance of slavery and NO sexism"
is wholly unfounded. It essentially boils down to an appeal to emotion
and an appeal to your own subjective Western 20th century concept of
morality.
Denis Giron
> Denis, not sure where you get your wiggle room notions from. Perhaps
> you can wiggle about how it's kept but I don't see any wiggle room at
> all in regard to when it's kept. In fact the man stoned for gathering
> sticks on the sabbath wasn't given any wiggle room at all even in
> regard to how it's kept. Was the same god in charge back then?
The stoning of the man is not inconsistent with a round earth.
Obviously he was required to hold to the time zone of the area under
pain of death. The sabbath begins when the sun goes down, and the sun
went down in that area, thus the sabbath had begun in that area. This
seems like a very sensible way of treating the sabbath (even within
the context of Draconian punishments for those who break the sabbath).
> Re the issues of slavery and sexism in the decalogue. You can't be
> saying what I think you're saying, surely. I must have it wrong. Do I
> understand you as saying it is nothing more than a subjective Western
> 20th century concept of morality that would causes me to doubt that
> god was the author of the decalogue because it implies the acceptance
> of slavery and sexist attitudes?
What I was stating was that *IF* the Bible promotes sexism and
slavery, that does not logically imply that the Bible is not the word
of God. Your argument seemed to be that the Bible promotes sexism and
slavery, therefore it is not from God. While your antecedent premise
may be true, the ultimate conclusion is not implied by it in the
least. Hence your argument is fallacious in light of certain hidden
assumptions and logical leaps that ultimately boil down to an appeal
to emotion and your own subjective sense of morality.
Note that there is nothing inconsistent about these two propositions:
(1) God is the author of text X.
(2) Text X encourages (or at least tolerates) a number
of practices considered deplorable by Denis Giron,
Mr. "Chain Breaker," or proponents of the Western
moral outlook in general.
The "deplorable" practices of the second proposition could be
anything: slavery, captial punishment, animal abuse (suppose text X
has a verse that reads: "The Lord thy God commands that you put a
kitten in a blender every Wednesday), et cetera. Ultimately we must
ask: who or what is the source of morality? God, or some guy posting
to usenet under the nomme-de-web "Chain Breaker"? Maybe God is not the
source of morality (maybe there is no God), but that seems to only
further establish the subjective nature of morality. Either way, moral
Didymus
> So I guess I can agree that the scientific objections to
> the bible don't stop them, but neither do the philosophical issues!
When you're dealing with believers, faith trumps reason and evidence every
time.
> ...mankind really does not possess one
> thread of undeniable evidence that god, any god, has given us even one
> lousy syllable of divine revelation.
I'd substitute "plausible" for "undeniable." Anything can be denied.
> That is the reason I tend to focus on obvious fraudulent issues such
> as the decalogue. This especially, because it was meant to be written
> by the finger of god. Well, was it or not? Get my drift? If it wasn't,
> it is just more proof of the dishonest nature of the writings of those
> claiming to be messengers of divine revelation.
I think it's more persuasive to point out fundamental contradictions than it
Didymus
news:<cNS5b.22649$zL5....@nwrdny02.gnilink.net>...
> arguments (i.e. appeals to some sense of right and wrong) are
> insufficient for proving that a given text is not the word of God.
Those who insist that there is one set of moral standards for God, and
Chain Breaker
Chain Breaker
you can wiggle about how it's kept but I don't see any wiggle room at
all in regard to when it's kept. In fact the man stoned for gathering
sticks on the sabbath wasn't given any wiggle room at all even in
regard to how it's kept. Was the same god in charge back then?
Re the issues of slavery and sexism in the decalogue. You can't be
saying what I think you're saying, surely. I must have it wrong. Do I
understand you as saying it is nothing more than a subjective Western
20th century concept of morality that would causes me to doubt that
god was the author of the decalogue because it implies the acceptance
of slavery and sexist attitudes? (CB)
Chain Breaker
> That IS what I thought you said. You seemed sane.
This NG appears to be duplicating postings and putting them all over
the place like a dog's dinner. It aint me!
Upon reflection my comments above to Denis were a little cryptic. To
elaborate, I totally reject, as insane, the notion that man could, or
should, accept as the word of God even things that are repugnant to
him. You mentioned putting a kitten in the blender every Wednesday,
for example. What if it said child? No difference, it's god's word,
just obey it? Utter dehumanizing bullshit!
Denis Giron
> Christians generally are aware of all those philosophical problems but
> believe anyway. They argue that it is simply the limitations of human
> understanding which prevents us from seeing the big picture. One day,
> they say, all will be revealed! So I guess I can agree that the scientific
> objections to the bible don't stop them, but neither do the philosophical
> issues!
Take any religion (be it Christianity or not); we'll call it religion
X. It is almost certainly true to state that some adherents of X are
so dogmatic that no matter what is shown to them, they will never
admit that this is a serious problem for X. I state this because this
is true of Christianity and every other religion. You've probably met
a few Christians who refused to acknowledge the philosophical and
scientific problems that you feel arise in Christianity. That said,
this does not mean your statements above apply to Christians in toto.
You should (continue to) post your criticisms here in SRC, and see
what responses you'll get (I myself am interested in a number of
topics regarding Christianity and science).
> You and I might not find their arguments satisfactory but THEY do,
> and it allows them to continue believing what they WANT to believe.
It should be irrelevant whether an individual is satisfied with the
argument or not. We should have tools for determining the validity and
soundness of a given argument, and indeed we do. Western Philosophy
allows us to examine arguments with at least a modicum of objectivity.
> It slowly dawned on me that mankind really does not possess one
> thread of undeniable evidence that god, any god, has given us even one
> lousy syllable of divine revelation.
Undeniable evidence? I guess I agree here...
> The conclusion became inescapable to me that all things religious have
> had their origins at the seat of our intellectual understanding - the
> brain inside our heads! We made it up!
Your conclusion may very well be true, but one cannot deduce it from
what you have written above. In other words, while the above may be
true, you certainly have not proven it to be true, though this is as
good a spot as any on the net to attempt to prove it true.
> That is the reason I tend to focus on obvious fraudulent issues such
> as the decalogue. This especially, because it was meant to be written
> by the finger of god. Well, was it or not?
I have no evidence that the ten commandments as appears in Exodus were
authored by God. This is a position, I think, that Christians would
accept a priori as an axiom of their faith. This does not mean they
can never abandon that axiom. If you can present a sound argument for
why the text is not the word of God, I'm sure at least the sensible
non-dogmatic Christians will agree with you.
Chain Breaker
Denis Giron
and an appeal to your own subjective Western 20th century concept of
morality.
Denis Giron
> Those who insist that there is one set of moral standards for God, and
> another for man, are engaging in the fallacy known as Special Pleading.
Well, I was not stating precisely that; rather I was stating that if
one starts from the premise that God is our source of right and wrong,
and God defines X as right, and Y is wrong (or a text that allegedly
is God's word claims such), then X is right and Y is wrong for that
person. The issue was our source of morality. Are there objective
moral laws without God? I don't believe so (on the flip side, I agree
that one might retort "are there objective moral laws *with* God, and
if so, why?" as a way to possibly demonstrate how arbitrary our chosen
ultimate source on morality may be).
> In its most succinct form, it reads like this: "Humans must follow the
> rules, but God's motives and acts are a mystery. God is just, merciful etc
> by definition, so WHATEVER he does MUST BE just and merciful etc."
That wasn't my argument at all. Nonetheless, to work with your post,
suppose we (humans) set a standard definition of "just" and
"merciful," and God does not measure up (exempli gratia: in the Talmud
God is called "ha-Rachaman," and in the Qur'an he is called
"ar-RaHman," both meaning roughly "the most merciful" - while
Christians don't use the Talmud or Qur'an for their source of
information on the nature of God, they might at least agree, in
principle, that God is the most merciful - but under the hypothetical
definition set by humans, Gandhi may measure up as *more merciful*
that the God of Abraham, id est the God of Christianity, as well as
the God spoken of in the Talmud and Qur'an, assuming this is roughly
the same God). Even in such a situation, my point does not change:
there is no logical rule that states that if a text does not fit *our*
definition of moral, just, or merciful, that the text was not authored
by God. The reasoning simply does not follow, and that was my only
point.
> No matter how cruel and horrific his acts, God gets a free pass because....
> he's God, by golly! He, like the ancient kings, can do no evil, purely by
> virtue of his pre-eminence.
Again, this was not my argument, thus your post has the feeling of a
straw man. To regain the context of the discussion, the person posting
under the nomme-de-web "Chain Breaker" put forth an argument that
implied that the perceived barbarity and/or immorality of the Bible is
evidence that the text is not from God. I was simply noting that his
argument was fallacious. It is wholly possible that God could put
forth laws that do not fit with the sense of right and wrong held by
you, Chain Breaker, or even myself. This does not mean the Bible *is*
the word of God. I'm simply pointing out the fallacy of his argument.
Knocky
> The OT at first, then, shock horror, the
>NT. It slowly dawned on me that mankind really does not possess one thread of
undeniable evidence that god, any god, has given us even one lousy syllable of
divine revelation.
Wrong! That an incontinent entity exist and that this entity is the ultimate
"First Cause" of the observeable univewrse is demonstated by modling the
universe as a Morkov process; and Dembski demonstated that this entity is
intelliegent in his book "The design Inference." The OT Testament Torah was
written 3000 years ago, several hundred years prior to the beginnings of Greek
philopsophy. I have a exegesis of Genesis 1 that proves that this "myth" is
compatabile with MODERN COSMOLOGY AND EVOLUTION theories, and Exodus 3:14
speaks on an incontingent being 2000 years prior to Western philosophers came
up with this concept. Sorry sir, but how did so ancient a man come up with
this without some help from someone?
Denis Giron
>
> That IS what I thought you said. You seemed sane.
This is a convenient ad-hominem. Regardless of whether I am sane or
not, regardless of whether I am a Christian or not, regardless of
whether the Bible is the word of God or not, your argument that the
Bible's failure to be consistent with *your* sense of morality is
evidence that it is not the word of God is simply invalid. Maybe the
Bible is not the word of God. Nonetheless, you cannot prove it by
making an appeal to your own subjective sense of right and wrong.
Humans have variant senses of right and wrong, thus any text will
conflict with some people's morality. I, for example, am very
passionate about animal rights, and consider it "immoral" to eat meat
when it is not necessary. Does this mean that texts which permit or
even encourage the eating of meat are not the word of God? Of course
not! What if there was a God, and he ordered people to eat meat? Who
should his followers listen to, God, or me? The same question applies
to any moral law, because moral laws are subjective. It is wholly
possible that God would lay down a set of laws that conflict with your
subjective Western-influenced sense of morality, thus stating that the
Bible is not the word of God because it conflicts with your sense of
morality is fallacious. You can call me insane all you want (it only
shows that you wrongly assume I agree with the laws of the Bible), but
logic is not on your side.
Matthew Johnson
>
>"Denis Giron" <denis...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>news:pSR6b.4989$KX6...@nwrdny03.gnilink.net...
>> nothin...@hotmail.com (Chain Breaker) wrote in message
>news:<cNS5b.22649$zL5....@nwrdny02.gnilink.net>...
>> ... moral
>> arguments (i.e. appeals to some sense of right and wrong) are
>> insufficient for proving that a given text is not the word of God.
>
>Those who insist that there is one set of moral standards for God, and
>another for man, are engaging in the fallacy known as Special Pleading.
This may be true for _many_, but it is certainly not true for _all_ who claim
there are separate sets of moral standards for God and for Man.
>In its most succinct form, it reads like this: "Humans must follow the
>rules, but God's motives and acts are a mystery. God is just, merciful etc
>by definition, so WHATEVER he does MUST BE just and merciful etc." Kind of
>begs the question, doesn't it?
Yes, it does. That is _exactly_ why such reasoning was widely REJECTED by the
Orthodox and Roman Catholic Churches. It first popped up in Medieval
Scholasticism, but again, was widely rejected.
It is only with the advent of so-called 'Reform Theology' that it became widely
accepted in Western Christianity.
Because of that pervasive tautology, terms
>like "goodness" and "justice" and "mercy" and "benevolent" lose their
>meaning when they're applied to God.
Absolutely. Again, this is why it is rejected by the groups I mention above.
[snip]
Instead, we prefer to learn what it means for God to be good from Mt 5:48 (and
its context), which establishes the _correct_ link between the goodness of God
and the goodness of men who imitate Him.
Didymus
news:<cNS5b.22649$zL5....@nwrdny02.gnilink.net>...
> arguments (i.e. appeals to some sense of right and wrong) are
> insufficient for proving that a given text is not the word of God.
Those who insist that there is one set of moral standards for God, and
another for man, are engaging in the fallacy known as Special Pleading.
In its most succinct form, it reads like this: "Humans must follow the
rules, but God's motives and acts are a mystery. God is just, merciful etc
by definition, so WHATEVER he does MUST BE just and merciful etc." Kind of
begs the question, doesn't it? Because of that pervasive tautology, terms
like "goodness" and "justice" and "mercy" and "benevolent" lose their
meaning when they're applied to God. He's still merciful, etc. even if he
sets up a human sacrifice where his own son suffers a bloody, excruciating
and humiliating death.
No matter how cruel and horrific his acts, God gets a free pass because....
he's God, by golly! He, like the ancient kings, can do no evil, purely by
Chain Breaker
Chain Breaker
Chain Breaker
> That IS what I thought you said. You seemed sane.
This NG appears to be duplicating postings and putting them all over
Denis Giron
> Christians generally are aware of all those philosophical problems but
> believe anyway. They argue that it is simply the limitations of human
> understanding which prevents us from seeing the big picture. One day,
> they say, all will be revealed! So I guess I can agree that the scientific
> objections to the bible don't stop them, but neither do the philosophical
> issues!
Take any religion (be it Christianity or not); we'll call it religion
X. It is almost certainly true to state that some adherents of X are
so dogmatic that no matter what is shown to them, they will never
admit that this is a serious problem for X. I state this because this
is true of Christianity and every other religion. You've probably met
a few Christians who refused to acknowledge the philosophical and
scientific problems that you feel arise in Christianity. That said,
this does not mean your statements above apply to Christians in toto.
You should (continue to) post your criticisms here in SRC, and see
what responses you'll get (I myself am interested in a number of
topics regarding Christianity and science).
> You and I might not find their arguments satisfactory but THEY do,
> and it allows them to continue believing what they WANT to believe.
It should be irrelevant whether an individual is satisfied with the
argument or not. We should have tools for determining the validity and
soundness of a given argument, and indeed we do. Western Philosophy
allows us to examine arguments with at least a modicum of objectivity.
> It slowly dawned on me that mankind really does not possess one
> thread of undeniable evidence that god, any god, has given us even one
> lousy syllable of divine revelation.
Undeniable evidence? I guess I agree here...
Chain Breaker
Denis Giron
> Upon reflection my comments above to Denis were a little cryptic. To
> elaborate, I totally reject, as insane, the notion that man could, or
> should, accept as the word of God even things that are repugnant to
> him.
Well, that's fine, but that is not related to my comments. If you find
something repugnant, and personally can't believe that God would say
such a thing, that's for you. My point was only that noting that a
text conflicts with an individual's sense of right and wrong does not
negate the possibilty that the text is the word of God. My point was
that the logic of your argument was poor.
> You mentioned putting a kitten in the blender every Wednesday,
> for example. What if it said child? No difference, it's god's word,
> just obey it? Utter dehumanizing bullshit!
First of all, I'm more than a little surprised that the moderator let
that expletive go through. That aside, I was not saying "it's God's
word, just obey it." Nothing like that appeared in my posts, thus the
above is a straw man. Chain Breaker seems to be importing certain
assumptions about me rather than just reading my argument. Regardless
of whether the argument was put forth by a Christian or a
non-Christian, the argument still stands: appeals to one's own sense
of right and wrong are insufficient for demonstrating that the text is
not the word of God.
Denis Giron
> ...
Pax Vobis Knocky...
Chain Breaker:
> > It slowly dawned on me that mankind really does not possess
> > one thread of undeniable evidence that god, any god, has given
> > us even one lousy syllable of divine revelation.
>
> Wrong! That an incontinent entity exist and that this entity is the ultimate
> "First Cause" of the observeable univewrse is demonstated by modling the
> universe as a Morkov process; and Dembski demonstated that this entity is
> intelliegent in his book "The design Inference."
I think there are certain logical flaws in Dembski's argument, but I
do agree that first cause arguments are quite powerful. Nonetheless,
assuming the argument proves a first cause that is intelligent, this
does not, in itself, relate to Chain Breaker's claim that there is no
evidence of a God giving us "one lousy syllable of divine revelation."
In a vacuum, Chain Breaker's comments above do not deny the
possibility that God exists, and is the creator of the universe. He is
simply stating that there is no evidence that, if there was a God, God
revealed scripture/revelation to us.
Of course that is my response to Knocky's argument above, which was
not his entire argument. It should be noted that he continued to
present an argument for why we might believe this intelligent first
cause revealed at least "one lousy syllable of divine revelation," and
more. This was in the form of a scientific-hermeneutic approach to
Genesis, where, if I understand him correctly, Knocky roughly argues
that because we can correlate statements in Genesis with what we only
recently learned about the universe, we have at least prima facie
evidence that the author of Genesis was in fact someone who knew how
the universe was created:
> The OT Testament Torah was written 3000 years ago, several hundred
> years prior to the beginnings of Greek philopsophy. I have a exegesis
> of Genesis 1 that proves that this "myth" is compatabile with MODERN
> COSMOLOGY AND EVOLUTION theories, and Exodus 3:14 speaks on an
> incontingent being 2000 years prior to Western philosophers came
> up with this concept. Sorry sir, but how did so ancient a man come
> up with this without some help from someone?
I myself tried to make a correlation between Genesis and modern
science (within the context of the scientific-hermeneutic approach to
the Qur'an) last February, and that can be read here:
http://f24.parsimony.net/forum54389/messages/28918.htm
Two books that do the same are Gerald Schroeder, "Genesis and the Big
Bang," (Bantam, 1990), and Nathan Aviezer, "In the Beginning...
Biblical Creation and Science," (KTAV, 1990).
I am *VERY* interrested in reading Knocky's approach to Genesis 1 that
makes it harmonious with modern conceptions of cosmology, and would
ask that he post it here to soc.religion.christian. Later on today, I
myself will be submitting another post that touches on Isaiah 51:13
and how it can be interpreted in light of modern science. So Knocky,
please submit your exegesis on Genesis 1.
-Denis Giron
Denis Giron
> another for man, are engaging in the fallacy known as Special Pleading.
Well, I was not stating precisely that; rather I was stating that if
one starts from the premise that God is our source of right and wrong,
and God defines X as right, and Y is wrong (or a text that allegedly
is God's word claims such), then X is right and Y is wrong for that
person. The issue was our source of morality. Are there objective
moral laws without God? I don't believe so (on the flip side, I agree
that one might retort "are there objective moral laws *with* God, and
if so, why?" as a way to possibly demonstrate how arbitrary our chosen
ultimate source on morality may be).
> In its most succinct form, it reads like this: "Humans must follow the
> rules, but God's motives and acts are a mystery. God is just, merciful etc
> by definition, so WHATEVER he does MUST BE just and merciful etc."
That wasn't my argument at all. Nonetheless, to work with your post,
suppose we (humans) set a standard definition of "just" and
"merciful," and God does not measure up (exempli gratia: in the Talmud
God is called "ha-Rachaman," and in the Qur'an he is called
"ar-RaHman," both meaning roughly "the most merciful" - while
Christians don't use the Talmud or Qur'an for their source of
information on the nature of God, they might at least agree, in
principle, that God is the most merciful - but under the hypothetical
definition set by humans, Gandhi may measure up as *more merciful*
that the God of Abraham, id est the God of Christianity, as well as
the God spoken of in the Talmud and Qur'an, assuming this is roughly
the same God). Even in such a situation, my point does not change:
there is no logical rule that states that if a text does not fit *our*
definition of moral, just, or merciful, that the text was not authored
by God. The reasoning simply does not follow, and that was my only
point.
> No matter how cruel and horrific his acts, God gets a free pass because....
> he's God, by golly! He, like the ancient kings, can do no evil, purely by
> virtue of his pre-eminence.
Again, this was not my argument, thus your post has the feeling of a
Denis Giron
>
> That IS what I thought you said. You seemed sane.
This is a convenient ad-hominem. Regardless of whether I am sane or
Matthew Johnson
>news:pSR6b.4989$KX6...@nwrdny03.gnilink.net...
>> ... moral
>> arguments (i.e. appeals to some sense of right and wrong) are
>
>Those who insist that there is one set of moral standards for God, and
>another for man, are engaging in the fallacy known as Special Pleading.
This may be true for _many_, but it is certainly not true for _all_ who claim
there are separate sets of moral standards for God and for Man.
>In its most succinct form, it reads like this: "Humans must follow the
>rules, but God's motives and acts are a mystery. God is just, merciful etc
>by definition, so WHATEVER he does MUST BE just and merciful etc." Kind of
>begs the question, doesn't it?
Yes, it does. That is _exactly_ why such reasoning was widely REJECTED by the
Orthodox and Roman Catholic Churches. It first popped up in Medieval
Scholasticism, but again, was widely rejected.
It is only with the advent of so-called 'Reform Theology' that it became widely
accepted in Western Christianity.
Because of that pervasive tautology, terms
>like "goodness" and "justice" and "mercy" and "benevolent" lose their
>meaning when they're applied to God.
Absolutely. Again, this is why it is rejected by the groups I mention above.
Didymus
news:pSR6b.4989$KX6...@nwrdny03.gnilink.net...
> nothin...@hotmail.com (Chain Breaker) wrote in message
news:<cNS5b.22649$zL5....@nwrdny02.gnilink.net>...
> ... moral
> arguments (i.e. appeals to some sense of right and wrong) are
> insufficient for proving that a given text is not the word of God.
Those who insist that there is one set of moral standards for God, and
another for man, are engaging in the fallacy known as Special Pleading.
In its most succinct form, it reads like this: "Humans must follow the
rules, but God's motives and acts are a mystery. God is just, merciful etc
by definition, so WHATEVER he does MUST BE just and merciful etc." Kind of
begs the question, doesn't it? Because of that pervasive tautology, terms
like "goodness" and "justice" and "mercy" and "benevolent" lose their
meaning when they're applied to God. He's still merciful, etc. even if he
sets up a human sacrifice where his own son suffers a bloody, excruciating
and humiliating death.
No matter how cruel and horrific his acts, God gets a free pass because....
he's God, by golly! He, like the ancient kings, can do no evil, purely by
Didymus
> "Didymus" <did...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:<rqa7b.3699$ej1...@nwrdny01.gnilink.net>...
> > Those who insist that there is one set of moral standards for God, and
> > another for man, are engaging in the fallacy known as Special Pleading.
>
> Well, I was not stating precisely that; rather I was stating that if
> one starts from the premise that God is our source of right and wrong,
> and God defines X as right, and Y is wrong (or a text that allegedly
> is God's word claims such), then X is right and Y is wrong for that
> person.
1. I know you weren't. I was using your post as a springboard for some other
musings.
2. Again, I know.
> Even in such a situation, my point does not change:
> there is no logical rule that states that if a text does not fit *our*
> definition of moral, just, or merciful, that the text was not authored
> by God. The reasoning simply does not follow, and that was my only
> point.
Well, you ARE suggesting that those words are defined differently for man
and for God. In human language, the murder of one's own son is parracide:
not moral, not just, not merciful. In "God language," it's an
instrumentality of morality, justice and mercy. It's not just a matter of
OUR definition. Definitions of those words can easily be inferred from
scripture. Are we to take those definitions as human or divine or even both,
depending on which chapter and which verse?
> > No matter how cruel and horrific his acts, God gets a free pass
because....
> > he's God, by golly! He, like the ancient kings, can do no evil, purely
by
> > virtue of his pre-eminence.
>
> Again, this was not my argument, thus your post has the feeling of a
> straw man.
I wasn't strictly addressing your post, but rather some questions it raised.
To regain the context of the discussion, the person posting
> under the nomme-de-web "Chain Breaker" put forth an argument that
> implied that the perceived barbarity and/or immorality of the Bible is
> evidence that the text is not from God. I was simply noting that his
> argument was fallacious. It is wholly possible that God could put
> forth laws that do not fit with the sense of right and wrong held by
> you, Chain Breaker, or even myself.
Forget the "sense of right and wrong held by me, Chain Breaker, and EVEN
YOURSELF! What about the "sense of right and wrong" that's set forth in the
Bible? God's acts, as described in the Bible, don't conform to the standards
that appear elsewhere in scripture. Given this disparity between words and
deeds, what, pray tell, are we to believe is truly right and truly wrong?
> This does not mean the Bible *is*
> the word of God. I'm simply pointing out the fallacy of his argument.
Good of you to do that in such disinterested fashion, but the Bible has God
acting contrary to his own rules. Thus, the problem is not quite as "pure"
as you would suggest.
Didymus
Chain Breaker
> Well, I was not stating precisely that; rather I was stating that if
> one starts from the premise that God is our source of right and wrong,
Dear poster who goes by the nomme-de-web "Denis Giron," I don't start
from that premise.
> and God defines X as right, and Y is wrong (or a text that allegedly
> is God's word claims such), then X is right and Y is wrong for that
> person. The issue was our source of morality. Are there objective
> moral laws without God? I don't believe so (on the flip side, I agree
> that one might retort "are there objective moral laws *with* God, and
> if so, why?" as a way to possibly demonstrate how arbitrary our chosen
> ultimate source on morality may be).
You seem very mixed up. Please do not think badly of me if I suggest
that you pick a side and get off the fence.
Cut to the chase.
> there is no logical rule that states that if a text does not fit *our*
> definition of moral, just, or merciful, that the text was not authored
> by God. The reasoning simply does not follow, and that was my only
> point.
Now I know what your only point is I can address it. I find your
position illogical and dehumanizing. We are trying to determine if
these writings are in fact the word of god. We don't start from the
position that they are. We start from the position that we don't know.
We have nothing BUT our own intellect, instincts and definitions of
morality to guide us. Life has been teaching us from the very moment
we emerged from our mothers' wombs how to make rational decisions
about all sorts of things. The intuitions and skills we learn from
life do not cease when we approach matters of religion, they are as
important, if not more important, then than ever. It staggers me that
you appear to suggest we suspend the capacity to make moral judgements
that life has given us, and submit to the authority of a book because
it CLAIMS to be the word of god.
I think Robert Ingersoll had it right when he said:
"The same rules or laws of probability must govern in religious
questions as in others. There is no subject -- and can be none --
concerning which any human being is under any obligation to believe
without evidence. Neither is there any intelligent being who can,
by any possibility, be flattered by the exercise of ignorant
credulity. The man who, without prejudice, reads and understands
the Old and New Testaments will cease to be an orthodox Christian.
The intelligent man who investigates the religion of any country
without fear and without prejudice will not and cannot be a
believer."
Chain Breaker
> ....Sorry sir, but how did so ancient a man come up with
> this without some help from someone?
Knocky, the thought of an "incontinent entity" as the "first cause of
the observable universe," has ME pissing my pants. Mankind is
constantly "coming up" with stuff, but it doesn't prove the existence
of a Supreme Being.
AnOvercomer
Isa 40:21 Have ye not known? have ye not heard? hath it not been told
you from the beginning? have ye not understood from the foundations of
the earth?
Isa 40:22 It is he that sitteth upon the circle of the earth, and the
inhabitants thereof are as grasshoppers; that stretcheth out the heavens
as a curtain, and spreadeth them out as a tent to dwell in.
Cody H.
http://community.webtv.net/AnOvercomer02/Truth
Dave Wheeler
> explain scriptural inconsistencies, i.e., three persons in one god; a fully
> human and fully divine Jesus.
>
> There you have it - performed completely without the aid of science!
>
> There's more, of course, but that should do for now.
>
> Didymus
Didymus, Hats off to you for a perfectly written indictment of the
crazy Christian belief system. It absolutely beggars belief what some
people (sorry, hundreds of millions) will accept. I have nothing but
pity and I'm afraid to say, contempt, for people who do not embrace
reason. When will the curse of ignorance be eradicated?
Dave, proud to be a freethinker
Didymus
> nothin...@hotmail.com (Chain Breaker) wrote in message
news:<V7d5b.20464$NC2...@nwrdny01.gnilink.net>...
> Thus your assertion that if a text was
> written by God it would have "NO acceptance of slavery and NO sexism"
> is wholly unfounded. It essentially boils down to an appeal to emotion
> and an appeal to your own subjective Western 20th century concept of
> morality.
But not yours? Enough of your sham neutrality. Stop being coy; this is not a
forensics club. Where do you stand, Giron? Do you think the deity embodies
justice and mercy, or not? Do you think slavery is immoral, or not? Do you
think God condones it, as Paul did in Philemon, or not?
Didymus
BHZellner
> in fact the word of god. We don't start from the
> position that they are. We start from the position
> that we don't know. We have nothing BUT our own
> intellect, instincts and definitions of morality to
> guide us.
Friend, the idea seems to be that we should pick
a religion that conforms to our own pre-conceived
ideas of truth and justice. But it doesn't work that
way. If you were studying math or physics or
engineering, would you stick to things you already
understood? And reject anything that seemed
counter-intuitive? What need would you have to
take the course?
If you already had all the answers on spiritual matters,
what need would you have of divine revelation?
If you want to approach Christianity, you must do it
the same way you would approach an engineering
textbook. You must begin with the belief that you
understand nothing, and the Author understands
everything.
You will, no doubt, encounter things that you don't like.
That may be a sign that you are encountering the
Truth, and not some made-up fable.
Ben
Kix Adams
>
> Didymus, I agree that *many* Christians view the bible as purely a
> soteriological vessel. I also agree that the lack of scientific
> knowledge in some parts of the bible does not necessarily prove it was
> not divinely inspired.
>
> But, when that lack of scientific knowledge is specifically connected
> with something that the bible claims god wrote with his own finger,
> the debate may not be as silly as you think.
...
> May I ask you a personal question? If then, as Christians say, god is
> merely using the bible to present man with the keys to his heavenly
> kingdom, and the bible can be excused its faults, at least its
> scientific ones, why do you, personally, reject the invitation? Nice
> to talk to you.(CB)
My question to you would be; why do you find it necessary to take such
a stand in opposition to Christianity with any sort of argument,
obscure or otherwise? By this I mean, are you being forcibly pressured
into believing that God exists and that Jesus Christ was born and died
to save you from your sins? Is someone attempting to force you to live
according to the Ten Commandments? If not, then there is no legitimate
reason for any of these arguments. Could it be that you actually
aren't sure and you're hoping that someone will refute these lame
arguments? Or is this is just your way of attempting to push your
disbelief on others?
Chain Breaker
> a stand in opposition to Christianity with any sort of argument,
> obscure or otherwise? By this I mean, are you being forcibly pressured
> into believing that God exists and that Jesus Christ was born and died
> to save you from your sins? Is someone attempting to force you to live
> according to the Ten Commandments? If not, then there is no legitimate
> reason for any of these arguments. Could it be that you actually
> aren't sure and you're hoping that someone will refute these lame
> arguments? Or is this is just your way of attempting to push your
Kix, correct me if I'm wrong, but aren't you the person who wanted the
moderators here to be more like those on the Islamic NG? An
iron-fisted Taliban type approach, is my recollection. You are quite
free to correct me, but that was my understanding of the gist of the
message posted by a "Kix."
"There is no legitimate reason for any of these arguments," you say.
Agree with you or shut up, eh Kix? All dissenters against wall. Do I
get a blindfold?
What if I happen to believe that archaic religious beliefs actually
hamper, not help, mankind and have been responsible for much of the
global unrest and bloodshed for thousands of years. What if I believe
it would be beneficial if mankind moved on from these superstitious
notions? Would it be OK to voice an opinion, Kix? (CB)
Didymus
etc. - from either side. Debating religion is a good and healthy thing; but
holding those who disagree in contempt is too reminiscent of the Taliban,
the Inquisition, and those Massachusetts Bay colonists who expelled Roger
Williams. Hatred tends to get in the way of effective persuasion. It's also
bad for the hater.
Most Christians, like most atheists, agnostics, Buddhists and Muslims, et
al, are good and decent people. They don't know much about religion, and
they care even less. But ignorance or apathy does not make one worthy of
contempt, it just makes one ignorant and/or apathetic. I think many
Christians - even well-educated ones - are fearful of the horrors that might
befall them were they to reject Christianity. No matter how strong the
arguments against it, they can't bear the thought of living - or dying -
without their faith.
This is NOT to say that some fevered Christians don't deliberately or
inadvertantly trample on the rights of others. But that's a narrow (in both
senses) minority, and many of those have haven't a clue about what they're
doing - for example, those who think that public institutions should promote
prayer, display the Ten Commandments, and suchlike. They sincerely believe
that America was founded as a theocracy and that THEIR freedom is being
undermined when public property and funds can't be used to promote their
particular set of religious beliefs. It's unthinkable to them that they
could possibly be wrong. (It's our job to persuade them to make an effort to
see things from OUR perspective.)
It's hard, really hard, not to hold such people in contempt. But try, try,
try to resist the temptation.
Stay tuned - I think you'll find that there are some thoughtful, intelligent
Christians on SRC.
Didymus
----------------------------
"Dave Wheeler" <davewh...@ntlworld.com> wrote in message
news:i3l9b.4214$U41....@nwrdny01.gnilink.net...
Dave Wheeler
> try to resist the temptation.
>
> Stay tuned - I think you'll find that there are some thoughtful, intelligent
> Christians on SRC.
>
> Didymus
You have made me feel humble! In point of fact, as soon as I posted my
last message, I thought "Uh-oh, maybe that was a bit strong"! However,
I had just been reading one of the more 'out there' Christians, who
quote the Bible to explain the Twin Towers tragedy, for example, and
for these people it is hard not to feel contempt. However, I should
not have tarred everyone with the same brush, and I am working on
being more of a tranquil and tolerant person.
You are right - there are thoughtful and intelligent Christians here,
and perhaps these are the very ones that we are here to guide onto the
right path rather than alienate
Dave
Tom Wootton, Jr.
news:i3l9b.4214$U41....@nwrdny01.gnilink.net...
>
> Dave, proud to be a freethinker
I can think of no one more qualified to do the eradicating than Dave.
So, just when does the free-thinking Inquisition start?
Tom Wootton
"Nothing needs reforming so much as other people's habits."
------Mark Twain
Tom Wootton
Thanks for consistently well-written and respectful contributions, even
though we argue from opposite sides of the table.
> contempt, it just makes one ignorant and/or apathetic. I think many
> Christians - even well-educated ones - are fearful of the horrors that might
> befall them were they to reject Christianity.
Have you ever considered the "utility" of religious belief? Social
connections, community of shared values, etc. Do you suppose that
religious people remain religious, in part, because of the sense of
community they achieve? If, so, there may be little "horror" in the
equation. Religious people are religious because they find it useful, as
well as fulfilling.
> > crazy Christian belief system. It absolutely beggars belief what some
> > people (sorry, hundreds of millions) will accept. I have nothing but
> > pity and I'm afraid to say, contempt, for people who do not embrace
> > reason. When will the curse of ignorance be eradicated?
And, as for Dave, I can think of no one better qualified to begin the
"eradication". So when does the "free-thinking" Inquisition start, Dave?
Tom Wootton
"nothing needs reforming so much as other people's habits."
-----Mark Twain
Kix Adams
>
> Kix, correct me if I'm wrong, but aren't you the person who wanted the
> moderators here to be more like those on the Islamic NG? An
> iron-fisted Taliban type approach, is my recollection. You are quite
> free to correct me, but that was my understanding of the gist of the
> message posted by a "Kix."
>
moderated with an iron fist while others seem to lack any moderation.
In other words, just as we've seen hapening in our government, the
Muslims are protected with iron fist laws that can get someone charged
with a felony for voicing concerns about their religion while
Christians are freely attacked without any reprisal.
> "There is no legitimate reason for any of these arguments," you say.
> Agree with you or shut up, eh Kix? All dissenters against wall. Do I
> get a blindfold?
>
speech. Either nobody gets it or everyone should get it. If you are
free to come here and attack Christians than you should be just as
free to go to the Islamic board and attack them. But then you probably
wouldn't want to do that, would you? You see, I have reason to believe
that a LOT of the people posting here are Muslims who come to
desecrate this forum while demanding obedience to their rules and
respect be shown in every post on their own forum.
> What if I happen to believe that archaic religious beliefs actually
> hamper, not help, mankind and have been responsible for much of the
> global unrest and bloodshed for thousands of years. What if I believe
> it would be beneficial if mankind moved on from these superstitious
> notions? Would it be OK to voice an opinion, Kix? (CB)
You're free to believe whatever you want. But the fact is that many
more people have died at the hands of those who do not believe in God
than visa versa. I guess though that you are totally unaware that in
the past 25 years alone more than 3 million people have been
slaughtered in Sudan and Indonesia for refusing to leave Christianity
and bow to Islam. When they start doing that in your country will you
stand up for those who are being slaughtered? Or will you continue to
claim that we Christians are the ones to blame? And what will you do
when you, without any belief, are told that you must choose between
the God of Abraham and Mohammad's god or the Antichrist? There will be
NO fence sitters when that day comes and it is coming.
----
[One of the specific reasons for moderating this group many years ago
was to prevent what had become agonizingly long discussions about the
policy of the group. So discussions of moderation policy are
explicitly not permitted by the charter. However since the question
has come up, I'd like to indicate what I think the differences are
between soc.religion.islam and soc.religion.christian. I will note
that it's been a few months since I've looked at s.r.i so things could
conceivably have changed.
I haven't tried to submit either incoherent or off-color postings to
s.r.i, so I can't say whether they're tighter in those areas. But as
far as normal postings, s.r.i actually does permit attacks on Islam,
just as soc.religion.christian permits attacks on Christianity. As
far as I can tell from looking at it and posting a few times, there is
little difference between s.r.i and s.r.c on accepting postings
attacking our own religion. There are (or were last time I looked)
surely Christians who participate in s.r.i primarily to attack Islam,
as this posting alleges there are Muslims participating here to attack
Christianity. Actually I'd say that the postings from identifiable
Muslims here are on average less obnoxious than postings from
identifiable Christians on s.r.i.
The main difference is in discussions of other religions.
Soc.religion.islam normally rejects all postings about Christianity as
off topic, even when they are in response to a posting attacking or
misrepresenting Christianity. In moderating soc.religion.christian, I
always permit responses to attacks. I'm not anxious to accept attacks
on other religions, as they aren't really on topic. But there are
certainly times when a posting here will attack Islam. When that
occurs, I always permit responses from the other side. In equivalent
circumstances, soc.religion.islam normally does not permit a response.
If you respond with something comparing Islam and Christianity they
will typically accept it. Because it involves Islam it's on topic.
But not a posting purely on Christianity, even as a corrective to
something previously posted.
There's one other situation where I would also permit a posting
presenting Islam. When we're talking about some subject, I'm often
happy to see "here's how we deal with this question in Islam", or some
other religion, when it appears to me that the posting might
reasonably lead to constructive interaction between Christians and
others. I don't accept postings purely advertising another religion,
of course, and sometimes the line is a judgement call.
--clh]
Tom Wootton, Jr.
> "Chain Breaker" <nothin...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:U7d5b.20462$NC2....@nwrdny01.gnilink.net...
>
> -- A just and merciful god who nonetheless permits horrific evil to
thrive
> on the dubious grounds of avoiding interference with man's "free will";
I appluad Didymus for his consitently thoughtful and respectful challenges
to religon in general and Christianity in particular.
Notwithstanding, I argue that the "problem of evil", which appear so
frequently in the arsenals of atheists, is not nearly as much a problem as
they think. Those who accept religion manage quite nicely to finesse the
"problem" much of the time when confronted by seemingly insupperable evil by
simply turning the problem around. Instead of asking, "why does a merciful
God allow this?", I have usually found devoted Christians, when experiencing
inexplicable evil, to ask, "What do I do now? What does God want?"
Obviously this will hardly satisfy the non-believer, but then, any
explanation of religion independent of the satisfaction it provides to the
believer is going to be irrelevant. Put it this way: suppose the problem of
evil could be explained in a way to satisfy the non-believer. Never mind
how, just suppose it could. Would the non-believe then accept religion? If
the answer is no, then, ultimately, the argument is irrelevant. There are
other issues on the table. Why are religious people religious, anyway?
Caution here: charges of ignorance and superstition avoid the issue. There
are plenty of religious people who are neither. Obviously, they obtain
something from their faith which some atheists cannot or will not fathom.
> -- A god who made creatures so stupid as to deliberately enter a state of
> sinfulness and rebellion, thus losing the certainty of eternal salvation.
> (Knowing in advance what would surely transpire, wouldn't God have made
> smarter creatures? Or would the possession of greater intelligence have
> encroached upon our "free will"?)
No, not necessarily. I think you make God far more coercive than He
actually is. "Heaven" is a state or condition for those who have learned to
say to God, "thy will be done." Whilst "Hell" remains a state or condition
for those to whom God says "thy will be done." Note, please. I do not
stipulate any sort of a God which might be satisfactory to you. Your
problem (if you choose to accept it...and your frequent challenges implies
that you are) is to fathom why those of us who are religious find such a God
satisfactory.
>
> -- A god who holds each of us individually accountable for our acts, but
who
> condemned the entire human race to a state of sinfulness because a distant
> (and utterly preposterous) pair of ancestors gave in to temptation.
>
Not so preposterous as you may imagine. Forgetting for a moment the
extremities of the Eden myth (which is far truer allegorically than it may
be historically), modern anthropology holds that bands of human
hunter-gatherers in the neolithic era and earlier (at least in the temperate
zones) were far healthier and more peaceful than when civilization became
popular. The notion of a self-imposed human "fall" is not so outlandish as
Atheists think.
> --A god who has created a race of creatures for the express purposes of
> believing that he exists, obeying his hard-to-ascertain dictates and
> worshipping him.
Well, if you stick closely to doctrine, which I do not require of you, the
expressed purpose of religion--at least insofar as Christianity is
concerned--is only superficially about "belief", but rather about communion,
or intimacy, with the creator. Belief has no more to do with the real
purpose of religion than, say, appetite does when compared with actually
eating a meal.
(What's the need here? Why would an omnipotent, omniscient,
> omnibenevolent being insist on such sycophancy and obedience? Why would he
> create such purpose-built toys, knowing in advance exactly what they would
> do?)
Bingo! You've hit the nail on the head!!! At least you've asked the right
question. What is the need, in fact? This is the core issue which will
separate religionist from non-believer indefinitely. Unfortunately, you've
mixed the question with a generous load of sarcasm which may pose a danger
to actually getting at that core. I'll be brief. Religion has a utility
for those who practise it, and none for those who don't. Unless
non-believers can get an articulate handle on that utility (they don't have
to agree with it), then there will always be a danger of slipping back into
the miasma of sarcasm and contempt...which are never useful in learning how
to explain behavior.
> -- A just and merciful god who nonetheless rewards blind faith and
punishes
> skepticism, making our eternal salvation contingent upon our acceptance of
> weak hearsay testimony, all of which consists of literary works produced
by
> fallible human beings who lived 2000 and more years ago.
Thomas was a skeptic. Jesus only mildly reproved Thomas.
> There you have it - performed completely without the aid of science!
>
Science, of course, has a utility as well. The use of science, however, to
explicate away spiritual issues seems, well, contradictory.
Keep up the good work!
Tom Wootton
"Nothing needs reforming so much as other people's habits."
------Mark Twain
Chain Breaker
> Being an inveterate contrarian, I have to demur when contempt rears its ugly
> etc. - from either side. Debating religion is a good and healthy thing; but
> holding those who disagree in contempt is too reminiscent of the Taliban,
> the Inquisition, and those Massachusetts Bay colonists who expelled Roger
> Williams. Hatred tends to get in the way of effective persuasion. It's also
> bad for the hater.
I agree. Let's keep it light.
Did you hear about the dyslexic Christian?
He tried to sell his soul to Santa.
Dave Wheeler
> "eradication". So when does the "free-thinking" Inquisition start, Dave?
>
> Tom Wootton
I refer you to the response I gave Didymus - but please, freethinkers
only want to put people right, not force them. Sorry for any offense
though
BHZellner
> useful, as well as fulfilling.
Maybe they do, lots of them. But they shouldn't.
Would you believe a theorem in mathematics, or a
law of physics, because you find it to be "useful" or
"fulfilling?" If you have difficulties connecting with it
on either basis, does that mean that the law or
theorem is wrong?
We should believe in the Christian gospel not because because we find it to be
handy or congenial, but
because we find it to be TRUE.
As C. S. Lewis said, people who challenge Christianity
almost always want to talk about the incomes of
radio evangelists, or the Spanish Inquisition, or
something equally irrelevant. We just have to keep bringing them back again
and again to the question of truth. When Jesus said,
"I Am the Way, the Truth, and the Life...."
was he lying, or telling the truth?
I am not a Muslim-baiter. God will show them their
errors in due time, just as He will show my errors to
me. But when Mohammed said,
"God forbid that God should have a son."
Do you believe that God was constrained to take
Mohammed's advice? Or could God make His own
decision about that?
Ben
BHZellner
> of the global unrest and bloodshed for thousands
> of years.
I'm not interesting in debating such questions. I am
much more interested in knowing whether these
beliefs are TRUE or not.
Ben
Ned
news:jXtbb.6701$hL1....@nwrdny01.gnilink.net...
> > Religious people are religious because they find it
> > useful, as well as fulfilling.
>
> Maybe they do, lots of them. But they shouldn't.
>
> Would you believe a theorem in mathematics, or a
> law of physics, because you find it to be "useful" or
> "fulfilling?" If you have difficulties connecting with it
> on either basis, does that mean that the law or
> theorem is wrong?
>
> We should believe in the Christian gospel not because because we find it
to be
> handy or congenial, but
> because we find it to be TRUE.
True enough, M. Zellner.
But feelings are so darn *handy* - aren't they?
Feel like breaking that commandment? Go ahead.
Feel like CHANGING the commandments? Why not?
There's nothing that is more *convenient* than our feelings. They're the
worst possible guide to decent living, but sadly that doesn't stop people
from trying. Even people who like to think of themselves as Christians.
Unfortunately, if you want to be a Christian in the sense of being
Christ-like, you have to be prepared to put yourself and your feelings to
death.
It's a bargain, really, but some people still won't pay the price.
Ned
I've been in a few scrapes in my time, Ben, but I've never been assaulted
by a belief. Only actual people have ever assaulted me. Can you believe
it?!?!
Odd then, that religious beliefs can be so responsible for all this
heinous-ness, don't you think?
Oddly, all of the people who've ever assaulted me have been avowed
atheists. I don't blame their ill behaviour on their atheism, but on the
fact that they're criminal wretches.
Why it would be odd for Christians, who believe we're all fundamentally
flawed, sinful, innately unworthy of life itself, etc, to be sinners
themselves is something I've never really understood.
Christians stand and say "We're all sinners; we are all fundamentally
flawed."
These strange atheists then pop up and proclaim: "Christianity can't be
true; you're all sinful!"
Maybe someone can explain this to me?
Kristian Lahdensuo
that one really has. And have this role until those who don't understand
this tactic have solved all your conflicts.
"BHZellner" <bhze...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:yXtbb.6726$hL1....@nwrdny01.gnilink.net...
> > ... archaic religious beliefs actually hamper, not
> > help, mankind and have been responsible for much
> > of the global unrest and bloodshed for thousands
> > of years.
>
> I'm not interesting in debating such questions. I am
> much more interested in knowing whether these
> beliefs are TRUE or not.
>
> Ben
>
>
Dave Wheeler
> handy or congenial, but
> because we find it to be TRUE.
>
> As C. S. Lewis said, people who challenge Christianity
> almost always want to talk about the incomes of
> radio evangelists, or the Spanish Inquisition, or
> something equally irrelevant. We just have to keep bringing them back again
> and again to the question of truth. When Jesus said,
>
> "I Am the Way, the Truth, and the Life...."
>
> was he lying, or telling the truth?
>
I think you are absolutely right. The Truth is all. Emotions should
not get in the way, and indeed, I got into hot water by allowing
emotions to get in the way of the argument (see my 'pity' and
'contempt' issues above!). However, the Truth is a very difficult
thing to ascertain, and one cannot accept someone else's version of
the truth without some good, solid backing. So I'm afraid I have to
bring you back again and again to the questions:
1) Did Jesus actually say "I am the Way, the Truth, and the Life"?
2) If so, what did he actually mean?
3) Is it Jesus we are believing, or a subsequent writer of these
words? (are we believing Jesus, or the Council of Nicaea in 325AD?)
4) Does this really get us any nearer the truth?
Denis Giron
> > Well, I was not stating precisely that; rather I was stating that if
> > one starts from the premise that God is our source of right and wrong,
>
> Dear poster who goes by the nomme-de-web "Denis Giron," I don't start
> from that premise.
I understand that perfectly well. I raised the point to help explain
why appeals to one's own sense of morality are insufficient for
proving a text is not the word of God. If I believe a text is the word
of God, then THAT TEXT (not Chain Breaker) becomes my source (in whole
or in part) for determining what is "right" and what is "wrong".
> You seem very mixed up. Please do not think badly of me if I suggest
> that you pick a side and get off the fence.
>
> Cut to the chase.
I cut to the chase several posts ago: your appeal to your own sense of
morality is insufficient for proving the Bible is not the word of God.
> > there is no logical rule that states that if a text does not fit *our*
> > definition of moral, just, or merciful, that the text was not authored
> > by God. The reasoning simply does not follow, and that was my only
> > point.
>
> Now I know what your only point is I can address it. I find your
> position illogical and dehumanizing. We are trying to determine if
> these writings are in fact the word of god. We don't start from the
> position that they are. We start from the position that we don't know.
Okay, I'm fine with that. So we have the Bible, and we don't know if
it is the word of God or not. You were attempting to prove it was not
by making an appeal to your own sense of morality, and in doing such
you committed a fallacy. This is the case regardless of whether the
Bible is the word of God or not.
> We have nothing BUT our own intellect, instincts and definitions of
> morality to guide us. Life has been teaching us from the very moment
> we emerged from our mothers' wombs how to make rational decisions
> about all sorts of things. The intuitions and skills we learn from
> life do not cease when we approach matters of religion, they are as
> important, if not more important, then than ever. It staggers me that
> you appear to suggest we suspend the capacity to make moral judgements
> that life has given us, and submit to the authority of a book because
> it CLAIMS to be the word of god.
That's not what I'm claiming at all. what I'm stating is that noting
that the book conflicts with out own sense of morality does not prove
the book is not the word of God. Remember, we don't know if it is or
is not the word of God. Maybe it is; maybe it is not. However, if it
is, then it would be a source of morality. If God say perform action X
(this action could be anything, like slaying all idolaters, wearing
polyester on tuesdays, or eating apples with chocolate sauce on them),
and action X is considered "immoral" by Chain Breaker, who cares? The
fact that Chain Breaker considers action X "immoral" does not prove
that the command to perform action X was not from God.
> I think Robert Ingersoll had it right when he said:
> "The same rules or laws of probability must govern in religious
> questions as in others. There is no subject -- and can be none --
> concerning which any human being is under any obligation to believe
> without evidence. Neither is there any intelligent being who can,
> by any possibility, be flattered by the exercise of ignorant
> credulity. The man who, without prejudice, reads and understands
> the Old and New Testaments will cease to be an orthodox Christian.
> The intelligent man who investigates the religion of any country
> without fear and without prejudice will not and cannot be a
> believer."
I agree with Ingersoll on this point 100%. Now, why do you think this
is relevant to the discussion? I was discussing the fallacy you
committed, not freedom of belief.
Chain Breaker
> that one really has. And have this role until those who don't understand
> this tactic have solved all your conflicts.
Or to express yourself so you can be understood. (CB)
Chain Breaker
> heinous-ness, don't you think?
Why odd? After all Yahweh himself gave instructions for genocide.
See "Instructions for Genocide," amongst other delights.
http://www.thereverend.com/brick_testament/the_wilderness/index.html
Denis Giron
> > Thus your assertion that if a text was
> > written by God it would have "NO acceptance of slavery and NO sexism"
> > is wholly unfounded. It essentially boils down to an appeal to emotion
> > and an appeal to your own subjective Western 20th century concept of
> > morality.
>
> But not yours? Enough of your sham neutrality. Stop being coy; this is not a
> forensics club. Where do you stand, Giron? Do you think the deity embodies
> justice and mercy, or not? Do you think slavery is immoral, or not? Do you
> think God condones it, as Paul did in Philemon, or not?
Pax Vobis Didymus
I apologize for the delay in response, I was working the Feast of San
Gennaro, and was away from the computer for the last ten days...
Now, to respond to the above, I'm a bit confused by the "not yours"
response. I was simply pointing out the fact that it does not follow
that if a text is from God, it would have "NO acceptance of slavery
and NO sexism". I was simply pointing out that Chain Breaker resting
his argument on such a conditional proposition was not justified.
There is nothing coy about that. The point was that Chain Breaker's
argument was fallacious, and this is the case regardless of what my
beliefs may be.
For Didymus' information, however, I do think that slavery is
"immoral," and I feel the same way about eating meat... but so what?
This does not mean that if a text condones or encourages behavior that
I find "immoral," that text is not the word of God. The hypothetical
text in mind may indeed not be the word of God, but such has surely
not been proven by noting that it conflicts with the sense of morality
held by certain people. That's the issue here. Let's try to stay
focused.
Denver
> > Odd then, that religious beliefs can be so responsible for all this
> > heinous-ness, don't you think?
>
> Why odd? After all Yahweh himself gave instructions for genocide.
Did He indeed?
If He did then who, pray tell, elected to carry them out?
My point was simply that people are responsible for what they do. All this
talk of religion being the "cause" of whatever happens to have offended
your delicate sensibilities lately is just nonsense.
It's part of the common game of unspoken agreements that goes on in much of
human society: "you don't mention my culpability for the mess I'm in and I
won't mention yours for the mess you're in."
IMHO, of course.
Chain Breaker
> "immoral," and I feel the same way about eating meat... but so what?
> This does not mean that if a text condones or encourages behavior that
> I find "immoral," that text is not the word of God. The hypothetical
> text in mind may indeed not be the word of God, but such has surely
> not been proven by noting that it conflicts with the sense of morality
> held by certain people. That's the issue here. Let's try to stay
> focused.
I really don't get your point. How are we meant to believe that
something is from God if it doesn't even measure up to human standards
of morality, or as Didymus rightly puts it, it doesn't even measure up
with its own standards? What if the bible promoted the gross abuse of
children, for example, why should I entertain the notion that it is
God's word?
Didymus
news:H%Nbb.6314$7W4....@nwrdny03.gnilink.net...
> Christians stand and say "We're all sinners; we are all fundamentally
> flawed."
>
> These strange atheists then pop up and proclaim: "Christianity can't be
> true; you're all sinful!"
What's certainly NOT true are the incessant claims of moral superiority. For
more on this, see William Bennett and his fellow hypocrites on the Christian
Right.
> Maybe someone can explain this to me?
There's more than mere hypocrisy at work here; it's not just a matter of
Christians "sinning." The point is that religious people and institutions,
despite claims to possessing higher ethical principles, have engaged in
bloody wars, torture and terrorism for purportedly RELIGIOUS PURPOSES. It is
not just atheists or agnostics who point at warring religionists and say
"they're fighting in the name of Jesus," it's the combatants themselves who
insist that God is on their side and that their enemies are minions of
Satan, or "bad Christians," or "infidels," or something else that suggests
apostasy. On many, many occasions throughout history, religious individuals
and institutions have actively supported and endorsed man's inhumanity to
man - and sometimes even participated directly - and their stated reason for
doing so was to advance RELIGIOUS TRUTH. And in every case, they could point
to sacred texts - including scripture - to support their actions.
Can you grasp the irony in this? It's a lot like the Communists who
established a power elite in the name of equality and who ran Gulags in the
name of brotherhood.
It's an obvious fact that the actions of believers tell us nothing one way
or the other about the truth of a particular set of beliefs. That's beside
the point. But some belief systems, while claiming to be doing God's (or
"the People's" - same idea, different deity) work, do seem to end themselves
to evil uses. Could that be the result of something inherent in the beliefs
themselves? Could it be that these belief systems place a higher value on
their holy precepts than they do on the welfare of individual human beings,
and thus permit virtually any sort of atrocity in the name of those
precepts?
Maybe you can explain THAT to this "strange atheist."
Didymus
Chain Breaker
> >
> > Why odd? After all Yahweh himself gave instructions for genocide. (CB)
> Did He indeed? (Denver)
Sure, you know he did. (CB)
> If He did then who, pray tell, elected to carry them out? (Denver)
His faithful servants. (CB)
> My point was simply that people are responsible for what they do. All this
> talk of religion being the "cause" of whatever happens to have offended
> your delicate sensibilities lately is just nonsense. (Denver)
I never mentioned my "delicate sensibilities," I did mention that
religion had caused global unrest and bloodshed for thousands of
years, and you're right, the people were responsible, but they
believed they were carrying out Yahweh's commands. (CB)
> It's part of the common game of unspoken agreements that goes on in much of
> human society: "you don't mention my culpability for the mess I'm in and I
> won't mention yours for the mess you're in." (Denver)
Sure, man has to take responsibility for any mess he gets himself
into, no argument there. I'm simply saying that religious beliefs have
been behind so much of that mess. (CB)
Denis Giron
> > For Didymus' information, however, I do think that slavery is
> > "immoral," and I feel the same way about eating meat... but so what?
> > This does not mean that if a text condones or encourages behavior that
> > I find "immoral," that text is not the word of God. The hypothetical
> > text in mind may indeed not be the word of God, but such has surely
> > not been proven by noting that it conflicts with the sense of morality
> > held by certain people. That's the issue here. Let's try to stay
> > focused.
>
> I really don't get your point.
My point is simple, and has been stated several times: the fact that a
book contradicts a certain individual's sense of morality does not
mean the book is not the word of God.
> How are we meant to believe that something is from God if it doesn't even
> measure up to human standards of morality,
Whether you believe it is the word of God or not is for you to deal
with. I'm not trying to positively assert in this thread that the
Bible *IS* the word of God; I'm simply noting that appeals to one's
personal moral code as a way of proving that the Bible is *NOT* the
word of God are fallacious. So, in light of that, to answer your
question in a mildly different way, if the Bible does not meet certain
human standards of morality, that does not mean it is not the word of
God. On what grounds should we believe that God has to "measure up to
human standards of morality"?
> What if the bible promoted the gross abuse of
> children,
What if? What if the Bible told us to put kittens in blenders, et
cetera. The question is the same, and this has been covered. It
doesn't matter how atrocious a book's statements may be to you or I;
the fact still remains that one cannot prove it is not the word of God
by making an appeal to one's own subjective sense of right and wrong.
> why should I entertain the notion that it is
> God's word?
Again, I am not setting out in this thread to prove that the Bible is
God's word, nor have I positively asserted that it is in this thread.
I have not given you any reasons (at least not in this thread) to
entertain the notion that the Bible is the word of God. All I have
been doing is noting that you committed a fallacy when you tried to
argue that an appeal to your own sense of morality is sufficient in
proving that the Bible is not the word of God. My point from the very
start of my entrance in this thread was to note that your appeal to
morality did not prove the Bible is not the word of God (of course, I
agree this does not mean the Bible therefore is the word of God - it
may very well not be the word of God regardless of whether you or I
can prove such).
BHZellner
> possessing higher ethical principles, have engaged
> in bloody wars, torture and terrorism for
> purportedly RELIGIOUS PURPOSES.
Yes, that's one of the Devil's prime tools.
If you wanted to wreck the currency of a nation,
what would you do? Just burn up all you could get
hold of? No, that would make it more valuable. You
would instead COUNTERFEIT it.
The Devil puts bad people (or possibly, good people
who are misled) into positions of power throughout
Christianity, and other religions as well.
Ben
Denver
....
> > It's part of the common game of unspoken agreements that goes on in
much of
> > human society: "you don't mention my culpability for the mess I'm in
and I
> > won't mention yours for the mess you're in." (Denver)
>
> Sure, man has to take responsibility for any mess he gets himself
> into, no argument there. I'm simply saying that religious beliefs have
> been behind so much of that mess. (CB)
I know, I was just teasing you a little, to make a point. Forgive me, I'm a
bit of a pratt sometimes.
I don't actually think what you're saying is correct though. I know how
good we all are (me included, most emphatically) at rationalising our own
desires. Many people who profess to Christian principles don't actually
believe them.
"By their fruits shall ye know them" - right?
Jesus also referred to this by saying "Not everyone who says 'Lord! Lord!
.... "
Lots of people would like to claim that religion is responsible for all
kinds of things, good and bad, for their own reasons. Christians who base
their faith on the teachings of scripture do not have this option.
All good things come from God, and we have no right to claim them for
ourselves. Evil here on earth originated with Lucifer and has spread to us,
and affected everything else.
One might just as sensibly argue that all the really bad things that have
happened are the results of a LACK of religion, but this wouldn't be
accurate, either.
What is more to the point is that PEOPLE as individuals are moral agents. A
religion is just a group of people. Go into ANY religious gathering and
talk to people in detail: you will find a surprising divergence of opinion
on each and every doctrine, and yet they will still claim to belong to the
same religion!
In the end, only INDIVIDUALS can decide how they're going to behave, and
only those individuals (even when they choose to behave like a mob) bear
the responsibility for their behaviour.
That point of argument has no direct relation to religion per se; it
applies to any discussion of people in any context.
But it refutes your assertion as to religion being to blame for the
behaviour of people.
On the contrary, people are to blame for religion.
Chain Breaker
> bit of a pratt sometimes.
You're forgiven.
> But it refutes your assertion as to religion being to blame for the
> behaviour of people.
Nuh, it doesn't.
Denver
> > I know, I was just teasing you a little, to make a point. Forgive me,
I'm a
> > bit of a pratt sometimes.
>
> You're forgiven.
Thanks.
> > But it refutes your assertion as to religion being to blame for the
> > behaviour of people.
>
> Nuh, it doesn't.
Hmmm. While that may be an emotionally satisfying response to the one
making it, I'm not sure it qualifies as valid argumentation.
I'm afraid I'm going to have to refer you to Python again: "An argument is
a connected series of statements designed to establish a proposition: it
isn't just the automatic gainsaying of anything the other person says."
Care to try again?
Chain Breaker
> > Nuh, it doesn't. (CB)
> Hmmm. While that may be an emotionally satisfying response to the one
> making it, I'm not sure it qualifies as valid argumentation.
> I'm afraid I'm going to have to refer you to Python again: "An argument is
> a connected series of statements designed to establish a proposition: it
> isn't just the automatic gainsaying of anything the other person says."
> Care to try again? (Den)
Re your Python jargon about how to conduct an argument, I am sure you
are right, but you see Den, that's where human judgement comes into
the equation. One weighs things up. Didn't I make the relevant points
in my original response? I believe I did, and I can't see what is
gained by going over the same ground again.
NG tennis matches where each party is talking and neither party is
listening, which go on and on ad nauseum with each party just trying
to find new ways to make the same point they made 25 posts ago, are
not really my cup of tea.
Bottom line, I've expressed my point of view, you've expressed yours,
we don't agree, that's fine.
Dave Wheeler's posting of 1 October on the subject "Chainbreaker's
Philosophy," concurs with my position and expresses it much better
than I could, you might want to take a look at that. (CB)
BHZellner
> children, for example, why should I entertain the
> notion that it is God's word?
Well, that's a straw man. The Bible manifestly
promotes nothing of the sort. The closest you
might come would be the Old Testament commands
to Joshua, to exterminate some of the Canannite
tribes to the last woman and child.
Most Christians believe that all who die in infancy go
to heaven. So far as I can tell, Muslims and Jews
believe the same thing. But the belief implies that
children allowed to grow up in a wicked society like
that of the Canannites may be in for a very different
fate. So is it more merciful for God to allow them to
grow up, or not?
There's no doubt that the great majority of all
human beings who have lived have died in infancy,
many of them of starvation, or worse. Weep not
for them. Many of them, if not all, are in heaven
now and forever. Rather weep for the ultimate fate
of the adults who conceived them without regard for
their abilities or desire to provide for them, or who neglected or abused them,
or even those who reared
them in a corrupt culture!
If it was God's sovereign choice to create people who
He new would neglect, abuse, or corrupt their children,
do you put the blame on God, or the abusers?
Would God have done better never to create such
people? Or never to allow them to have children?
What would such a child, now in heaven, say about
that?
Who are you, or I, to decide such questions?
Ben
Didymus
> The Devil puts bad people (or possibly, good people
> who are misled) into positions of power throughout
> Christianity, and other religions as well.
And exactly how does one know that he or she is NOT one of those "good
people who are misled"?
Didymus